Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: editor-surveyor
You just don't get it.

Hearing someone defend something when they have a dog in the fight has way less credibility/impact than the identical defense from a source that is neutral, or even opposed to the topic.

At no time did I question the validity of anything in the article, merely pointed out that the source would be EXPECTED to have those conclusions.

22 posted on 10/30/2007 10:23:31 AM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: diogenes ghost

You might try studying the English language.

How might one be ‘opposed’ to a topic?

Your assumption of neutrality of any agency benefitting from taxes or grants is also laughable. All real science is vested in free enterprise. Universities that accept government grants to manipulate data are the antithesis of science. The fact that a profit can be extracted from the real world operation of a theoretical proposition is by definition validation.


23 posted on 10/30/2007 10:41:49 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson