You haven’t noticed her tendency to, err… magnify the font size to emphasize the part she (erroneously) thinks her opponent didn’t notice? Exactly like Honesty just did?
Ooookaaay… :backs slowly away:
No, you misunderstood. I thought I had missed a name change (or something).
I categorically deny being DSeid.
But I always say that.
Well, I’m not Stoid and I don’t even know who he or she is (and, frankly, I don’t care as it has nothing to do with the discussion). Unfortunately, I am forced to magnify, italicize, and bold because the posters here are unable to grasp any point unless it’s staring them in the face and flashing in neon lights. For example, Chesire Human, there are posters here who believe the Russians used a control despite there being no evidence that they used a control. Others even believe that polonium and radon are so enriched in the environment that non-fertilizer grown tobacco has copious amounts of polonium and radon. Lastly, perhaps more startlingly, no one has the intellectual mettle to even address my criticisms of the Russian paper. When we get close to getting to a good debate, the discussion inevitably devolves into ad hominem attacks and we’re no longer talking about Mr. Arafat but how I made a math mistake (which I later corrected), that I’m a liar* (Cites: 1, 2, 3, etc), and I’m one of Straight Dope Message Board most prolific anti-Israel posters:rolleyes:.
Look carefully at this thread, Chesire Human, the peanut gallery *never *quotes me in full. Go ahead, please, take a look. Take look on the last two or three pages. They cherry pick sentences to quote me out-of-context. And they did it consistently. This means that I’ve had to spend an inordinate amount of time parrying specious accusations, which is why I’ve stopped responding to some posters entirely.
- What’s funny is that I once told a poster that he was full of bullshit. I got a my first warning in 13 years because it was inferred that I was calling him a liar. These clowns call and infer that to me all of the time in this thread and *nothing * happens. It’s all good though, I’m slowly (but surely) getting the hint ;).
[QUOTE=Inbred Mm domesticus]
In all honesty I am beginning to think that there simply isn’t an easy way to separate the French interpretation of their data from the Swiss version of their data.
[/QUOTE]
The Swiss Paper: Methods? Check. Peer review? Check. Controls? Check. Appendices? Check. Data? Multiple Figures.
The Russian Paper: Methods? Check. Data? 1 Figure labeled “Tentative Conclusion”. Peer Review. * No*. Controls? * No*. Appendices? Lost to the annals of time (in other words:No).
The French Paper: Not even released yet, don’t even know why its even on the table for discussion.
IMO, there’s not even a contest and any objective scientist reading the three papers (or really two, because one is non-existent) must come the conclusion that one was done with scientific rigor and the other was one. Period, and I challenge anyone to tell me otherwise. In science, you DO NOT take one reading and put that as your result. You take many observations of the sample to ensure that you’re getting the most accurate result. What the peanut gallery fails to grasp is that the more observations you make, the more confident you can be in your interpretation. There is no way the Russians can be confident in their data (and they admit that they aren’t confident; I mean, after all, who labels their only figure as “Tentative Conclusion”?) because they only measured most of their samples just one time. This is an insufficient number of observations to come to any meaningful conclusions about the data.
[QUOTE=Inbred Mm domesticus]
What we’ll have in the end are two camps of people: those who think the data suggests Israel killed Arafat using polonium or Israel killed Arafat using some other means (that was a joke as well).
[/QUOTE]
Sad but true. It’s unfortunate that people’s biases get in the the way of the data. It’s all good though, because while our present knowledge on the effects of polonium is poor, it won’t always be that way. I’m sure in the future there will be definitive and conclusive proof that will prove that Mr. Arafat did not mysteriously die of natural causes. Most people with a functioning right hemisphere that’s functionally loaded with neural software for intuition and insight can figure out that if polonium is found on your clothes, found in your bones, you died 3 weeks later, and most of your symptoms met the criteria for radiation sickness, you likely did not die of natural causes. Clearly, the peanut gallery believes - bless their community college hearts - that the samples were contaminated by environmental polonium and radon, that Mr. Arafat’s belongings were not contaminated with polonium, that the radioactivity of Mr. Arafat’s bones was negligible and insignificant, and that Mr. Arafat died of natural causes.
- Honesty
It never ceases to be amusing that you claim scientific knowledge and shoot yourself in the foot at the same time. Not released in its entirety yet =/= it doesn’t exist no matter how much you’re going to hold your breath until your face turns blue. Denying its existence isn’t very scientific. Still, neither is asking for proof that Israel didn’t threaten the French scientists to come to the ‘right’ conclusions in this paper that you say doesn’t exist.
This is true, but how can you give weight to something that’s not been released yet? Here’s something more mundane: Let’s assume the Supreme Court releases an off-handed press release that “Obamacare is partially constitutional” without the accompanying opinion. How do State and Federal figure out what’s what until that opinion is released? IMO, The same goes for the French data. It’s impossible to speculate what the French data is and what the numbers are until it is released. Where I come from, you don’t count your chickens before they hatch, but YMMV.
You see, Chesire Human? I spent this entire thread making no accusations about who killed Mr. Arafat. In one post, I played devil’s advocate and ever since then, there’s been the implication that I personally believe that Israel did it. Here’s my quote in full context:
[QUOTE= Honesty]
For argument’s sake, let’s assume that Yasser Arafat died of natural causes as outlined by the non-existent report by the French. What evidence is there that the scientists were not threatened by Israel or any other country to come up with a negative result? The French (and Russians) are so hungry to say that he died of natural causes, they’ve neglected to put out the corresponding data. Also, do we assume that the Swiss scientists are fraudulent?
[/QUOTE]
Here’s how Dissonance, quoted me:
[QUOTE= Honesty]
What evidence is there that the scientists were not threatened by Israel or any other country to come up with a negative result? The French (and Russians) are so hungry to say that he died of natural causes, they’ve neglected to put out the corresponding data.
[/QUOTE]
Notice how Dissonancelopped off the beginning of my paragraph? When I corrected him and explained that this was a devil’s advocate position, Dissonance wrote:
[QUOTE=Dissonance]
Did you not notice that you ended that statement with a period, and then asked for evidence that the dread Israelis hadn’t threatened the scientists? What sense would it possibly make for Israel to threaten the scientists to come up with a negative result if he had died of natural causes? The Israelis are just so villainous that they routinely threaten scientists from foreign countries to present truthful findings or they’ll kill them and their families? I mean, for argument’s sake you’ve decided he died of natural causes, right? You’re misrepresenting your own position. What’s a shame is it’s pretty obvious you’re making this shit up on the fly.
[/QUOTE]
It’s an odd statement, is it not? It’s almost as if s/he is saying that that a devil’s advocate position must be be prefaced with a disclaimer at each sentence. If that’s the case, what are the purpose of paragraphs? I’d really like to know. I also question the validity of the Swiss study (i.e. “Also, do we assume that the Swiss scientists are fraudulent?”). Why would I spend all of the this time defending the Swiss study only for me assume that its fraudulent? Anyone? Please? I clearly was taking a devil’s advocate position and when I insisted I was, I was accused of “making shit on the fly”, that I was attempting to “fool” the posters here, and other comments.
These are just some of the accusations I’ve had to dodge in this thread: none of them are true and are used as a way to filibuster and distract from meaningful discussion. It appears that I could be right 95 times out of 100* and there be a five page discussion on what I got wrong, how its wrong, how it makes everything I said wrong, and how I should shut up and go home.
- Honesty
- Even the math, I happily admitted that I was weak on the very first page of this thread, #28 and again in #295, and again in this post. I asked for help in calculations and even requested to be double-checked, as well.
True, it’s likely that those who view Israel as the embodiment of evil will always believe the Arafat-was-poisoned-by-polonium tale, and those with more nuanced views will be skeptical. Where you will not see “two camps” (at least not of remotely comparable size) is in the scientific community, where reaction against the Swiss study’s methodology and conclusions has already manifested (as seen in this thread).
It’s starting to look like the scientific community’s reaction to the poorly constructed Seralini rat study (which purported to show higher tumor incidence in rodents fed genetically modified corn). There are two camps there as well - but the skeptical, evidence-based camp far outnumbers the few who back Seralini.
[QUOTE=Honesty]
I’m sure in the future there will be definitive and conclusive proof that will prove that Mr. Arafat did not mysteriously die of natural causes.
[/QUOTE]
In my upcoming publication “The Seven Pillars of Woo” this will be either a founding principle* or a sub-pillar, a.k.a. “I will be vindicated one day, bwa-ha-haaa!!”
So true. 
*right up there with “Science was wrong before!”
Well, that was enlightening, at least I know where I stand. So let me get this straight: if I believe the evidence suggests Mr. Arafat was poisoned by polonium, I somehow view Israel as the embodiment of evil? :rolleyes: If you have something to say Jackmannii, say it; you don’t need hide behind specious statements.
This is coming from the guy who confuses (and still does!!) a standard for a control. Because what he read in the paper “sounds like a control” (really?). How can you even begin analyze data when you can’t even recognize a experimental control and analytical standard? The answer is you can’t and the reason why you haven’t.
- Honesty
You fail in logic. “If A then B” does not lead to “If B then A”. You’re not much of a scientist, are you?
Where I come from, you don’t deny the existence of something because it hasn’t been fully publically released. You, on the other hand, seem to think this is an entirely sane thing to do.
Oh, woe is poor you, being attacked personally - oh wait, I mean being taken to task for things you actually wrote. There is a rather large difference. Again, your attempt to ret-con what you said as being ‘playing devil’s advocate’ is transparently obvious. Here, I’ll point it out for the third time for you, so you can go on to fail to address the actual issue for the third time: If, as you claim, you were just arguing from a devil’s advocate position that Arafat had died of natural causes, what sense would it possibly make for Israel to threaten the scientists to come up with a negative result if he had died of natural causes? None. The only reason you want proof that Israel didn’t threaten these scientists to come up with their conclusions, as absurd as such a demand is, is because you have already decided Arafat was in fact poisoned, and was in fact poisoned by the Israelis. Israel would have no reason to threaten said scientists if they didn’t poison Arafat. There would only be a reason for Israel to threaten them if Israel had poisoned Arafat and was attempting to cover it up. I’m sorry, your little slip up there puts to lie your claim of impartiality and making no accusations of who killed Arafat.
I don’t deny that it exists totally, obviously, the French put out a press release. As I stated many times before: I just can’t weigh data that has not been released yet. I’ve used multiple examples including the Supreme Court to illustrate this concept, if this is still insufficient, then, unfortunately, I am unable to convey to you in the English language what I mean. Perhaps someone else could step to the fore and give it a go.
Dissonance, strike two, one more strike and you’re out. You deliberately misquoted me and your attempt to out-run it is shameful.
[QUOTE= Honesty (Original)]
For argument’s sake, let’s assume that Yasser Arafat died of natural causes as outlined by the non-existent report by the French. What evidence is there that the scientists were not threatened by Israel or any other country to come up with a negative result? The French (and Russians) are so hungry to say that he died of natural causes, they’ve neglected to put out the corresponding data. Also, do we assume that the Swiss scientists are fraudulent?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Honesty (Dissonance version)]
What evidence is there that the scientists were not threatened by Israel or any other country to come up with a negative result? The French (and Russians) are so hungry to say that he died of natural causes, they’ve neglected to put out the corresponding data.
[/QUOTE]
The great thing about SDMB is that you can’t erase what you posted in this thread. Here, you deliberately removed the first and last sentence of my reply; you did so, IMO, in order to remove any doubt that I was taking the devil’s advocate position and to cast my position in the worst possible light. Who the fuck does that on an anonymous message board? You purposefully mischaracterized my position and it is clear as day that you did so as a means to poison the well for any fruitful discussion.
Here’s a helpful tip in the future, Dissonance, when you’re replying to someone and decide to truncate their reply, use ellipses or <snips> to tell the reader and other readers that you’re shortening their original reply. Then again, if you’re like Jackmannii and think I’m one of Straight Dope Message Board’s most prolific and vituperative anti-Israel posters, I can see why you would attempt to mischaracterize and cherry-pick my position.
- Honesty
I regret my comment stung you so badly, Honesty - but really, when you exclaim about how extraordinarily careful you are to avoid targeting Israel as the supposed Arafat-poisoner, and later suggest that two separate research teams came to the conclusion Arafat was not poisoned because they were threatened by Israel (and there is no other rational way to parse your comment), we have entered the land of farce.
It is noteworthy that while we have had all sorts of insinuations made in this thread (from you and other pro-poisoning theory advocates) about how we mustn’t trust the Russians and/or French because of supposed biases, there has been little to nothing from skeptics of the Swiss team’s findings about their source of financing (the Palestinian Authority and Arafat’s widow). Instead, criticism has been overwhelmingly on the basis of bad science and overreaching conclusions.
Jackmannii, if you read my post, I prefaced my comment with “for argument’s sake” and even even questioned the validity of Swiss report (something I’ve been defending >300 posts in this thread), how can you continue to believe that these are personal views rather than intellectual fodder put up for discussion?
I did not know that Ms. Arafat funded the Swiss study. If true, it would add to my personal perspective (though not necessarily change my conclusion) on the report. The critique you offered were the types of points and discussions I had hoped for in the thread, so in a weird, convoluted way . . . thanks.
- Honesty
Of course.
But a spokesperson for the lab told the Washington Free Beacon that the Palestinian Authority and Suha Arafat paid for both investigations.
“It was commissioned by Mrs. Arafat and at the same time the Palestinian National Authority.” CURML’s Darcy Christen said. “In this [latest report], it was invoiced to the Palestinian National Authority, because the first report was invoiced to Mrs. Arafat.”
Christen declined to say how much was paid for the projects, but said both were similarly priced.
Honesty, we all read your statement in context then and now and read it the same way. What you are now saying you meant makes no sense. If, for argument’s sake Arafat died a natural death, then how do we know the Israelis didn’t force them to fake the data? Huh?
Also I have several times in this thread mentioned the fact that the Swiss studies were funded by Arafat’s widow and the PA.
Jackmannii, actually the more time goes by the more sketchy the Swiss team’s report appears to me.
There was no funding disclosure made in their article. To their credit they readily admitted to their funding source when explicitly asked but disclosures of funding sources and potential conflicts of interest is standard operating procedure. Failure to have done so out front is a major divergence from ethical standards. Their customer was Ms. Arafat and the PA; that should have been stated upfront.
Making the claim in the Lancet article that it is not proven to be impossible for polonium to cause death without myelosuppression and that one possible way for that to possibly occur would be if his marrow was hypocellular from aging and/or the polonium somehow did not go to bone, all the while knowing that his marrow was actually “very rich” and essentially shouting out that they think they found polonium in his bones which they back calculate to have been a huge amount … that is very sketchy behavior.
And contrary to ethical standards of The Lancet, as made clear to prospective authors:
“All sources of funding should be declared as an acknowledgment at the end of the text. At the end of the Methods section, under a subheading “Role of the funding source”, authors must describe the role of the study sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.”
I see, so when you call a report non-existent what you obviously mean is that it exists.
You have then, of course, hit the report button on me twice, right? Misquoting another poster, even in jest, is a warnable and bannable offense. What, you haven’t reported my shameful conduct even a single time? I guess you’re using the word ‘misquoted’ the same way you use the word ‘non-existent’; that is to say you obviously don’t mean that I actually misquoted you since I clearly didn’t misquote you.
How do we know this supposed Al Jazeera journalist isn’t a Mossad agent spreading disinformation for the Israelis? Wait, let me rephrase that. cough For argument’s sake let’s assume that Arafat died of natural causes. How do we know this supposed Al Jazeera journalist isn’t a Mossad agent spreading disinformation for the Israelis?
[QUOTE=Honesty (Original Post)]
For argument’s sake, let’s assume that Yasser Arafat died of natural causes as outlined by the non-existent report by the French. What evidence is there that the scientists were not threatened by Israel or any other country to come up with a negative result? The French (and Russians) are so hungry to say that he died of natural causes, they’ve neglected to put out the corresponding data. Also, do we assume that the Swiss scientists are fraudulent?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Honesty (Dissonance Version)]
What evidence is there that the scientists were not threatened by Israel or any other country to come up with a negative result? The French (and Russians) are so hungry to say that he died of natural causes, they’ve neglected to put out the corresponding data.
[/QUOTE]
You misquoted and mischaracterized my position and it is clear to anyone reading those two versions; you deliberately removed the first and last sentence of my reply. How is that not misquoting someone? How is that not mischaracterizing someone’s position? How would you feel if I did that to you? Moreoever, what if everyone on the SDMB behaved the way you do? No fruitful discussion would ever take place. I didn’t (and will not) snitch because, frankly, I don’t get off by reporting people. In my years on this board, I’ve never reported anyone for anything. What the fuck for? I’d rather highlight your hypocrisy for all to see rather than have a moderator steal that pleasure from me. For example, the fact that you continue to say, “I didn’t misquote you” is just laughable to anyone who reads the two versions, Dissonance. If you’re smart - and I think you are - you must know that.
Up to a point, I don’t mind bit of trolling, Dissonance; admittedly, sometimes I do it to Chief Pedant about penis sizes when he’s being carrying on about race and IQ (e.g. dablksrstoopidlolol!11). But the difference between you and I is that I don’t have to misquote or mischaracterize his position or otherwise refer to him as "anti-X"as a means to filibuster all debate and poison the well. I get in there, take off my gloves, pick up a stick, and beat him with the stick of knowledge until he runs away (This is all figurative of course). Unlike most of the peanut gallery, I don’t need (nor want) an anonymous moderator to “save” me from the debate that you contributed to ruining when I can handle you (and any others) all by myself.
Finally, Dissonance, in the future, I encourage you to let the reader know when you’re truncating someone’s reply. It is the most honest, fair, and respectful thing to do for your fellow posters - even if you vehemently disagree with them.
- Honesty
P.S. Strike three. Your out.