- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
- Messages
- 1,354
Soooo, is this right?
1. Invoke Cliff Stamp to throw shade on the scientific character of one set of tests, to invalidate them.
2. Then insist that you get real knowledge with unrepeatable chopping with small sample sizes.
3. Then, knowing that this is obviously unscientific, curse Cliff Stamp as too meaninglessly "scientific" to understand the value of unrepeatable back yard hacking.
That is the most bizarre argument I have read in a long time. The cognitive dissonance is impressive. Cliff as both defender and antagonist. Newfies are complicated characters, it seems.
1. Invoke Cliff Stamp to throw shade on the scientific character of one set of tests, to invalidate them.
2. Then insist that you get real knowledge with unrepeatable chopping with small sample sizes.
3. Then, knowing that this is obviously unscientific, curse Cliff Stamp as too meaninglessly "scientific" to understand the value of unrepeatable back yard hacking.
That is the most bizarre argument I have read in a long time. The cognitive dissonance is impressive. Cliff as both defender and antagonist. Newfies are complicated characters, it seems.