Breast Mourning

submitted by Musky from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Which would you prefer to hear? That it doesn't disclose it's funding, or that everything in all recorded history and the world at large influenced it?

As for it's Abstract and it's Results? I just see a lot of excuses being made for unexplained abnormalities.

Please do tell me what the point of this little exercise was.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Which would you prefer to hear?

What dark money you think is behind pure research when that research is away from a topic that you have motivated distrust of the facts.

... Or did I overestimate your grasp of reality. Are you against palaeontology too, because young earth creation or something?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

So now ESG funds are dark money?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

They're not declared in the paper, are they?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

That's not a denial. So ESG funds are dark money?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

FFS.

Dark money is money from people or organizations whose names are not known or revealed.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dark-money

ESG funds are only dark money if the particular fund is not known or revealed.

If you have any further problems with the English language feel free to google it your fucking self.

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Yes, deflect but not deny. Of course! And then end with another obligatory insult. Have you caught on yet, that this tactic is not working?

So how was that paper funded? Is it your paper, is it your graduation thesis? As to me it looks to brush anomalies under the rug to maintain the status quo. I'm certain someone appreciates this, regardless as to it's accuracy. And that's a clearly biased motivation.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Yes, deflect but not deny.

Deny What? So far your question is "So now ESG funds are dark money?". The answer is "If and only if it's from people or organizations whose names are not known or revealed."

Your inability to comprehend simple English is dragging this out. You're trying to avoid something? Were you beaten with a scholarly paper as a child?

So how was that paper funded?

The dinosaur one?

The question you're avoiding answering is "What is the outside influence on this paper?"

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I can't answer that question as with most papers they do not disclose conflicts of interest.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

So you have no basis for claiming that the is one?

... But you suspect that the big dinosaur skin is biassing the results by influencing the research by threatening funding unless the interpretation of the fossil meets their nefarious purposes?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What dark money you think is behind pure research when that research is away from a topic that you have motivated distrust of the facts

You may not understand what you are saying. A paper is not "pure research". In fact, it's not research at all. A paper attempts to prove it's abstract and premise, as motivated by it's authors, the authors professor, and or funders involved. The only "research" involved is almost always clerical.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

A paper is not "pure research".

Yes it is.

A paper attempts to prove it's abstract and premise

No, the abstract summarises the findings of the research.

The premise is not part of a paper. That's just something you made up.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You really think the abstract is crafted after the Main body of the paper? Boy, have I got some bad news for you.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The entire paper is written after the research.

You don't write "The most commonly preserved soft tissues associated with ornithischian dinosaurs are skin remains. The apparent resistance of hadrosaur skin to decay, and its abundance in the fossil record relative to that of other tetrapods, has been attributed to factors such as thickness and composition. Here we report additional intrinsic factors within hadrosaur skin: 3D-preserved eumelanin-bearing bodies, dermal cells and blood vessel fragments in an organic matrix composed of protein fossilization products. The skin is much thinner than that of living mammals of similar size. It is likely that the preservation of hadrosaur skin is related to the arrangement of the layers composing it."

And then go and look for the additional intrinsic factors described.

Boy, have I got some bad news for you.

Do you mate. What is this news?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you mate. What is this news?

Papers are typically written upon a base premise. You already know the conclusion, and you are trying to prove it.

The entire paper is written after the research.

Correct. After.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Papers are typically written upon a base premise. You already know the conclusion, and you are trying to prove it.

Oh FFS.

And for the paper on the dinosaur skin? What is the conclusion they were "trying" to prove?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I already stated my observations. Not that it matters, because we are way off topic now. Of course, that is where you took us.