Something In The Water In Southampton

[IAmNick]

8 minutes ago, Baba Yaga said:

It's interesting how people feel fine to be judge and jury for Le Tiss dismissing him as whatever yet they have a big problem when others do that for Huw Edwards. It's clear to me he isn't a crackpot from the interview I already mentioned but your mind is already made up.

Because they're clearly not even slightly comparable.

In one case it's purely accusations without or with little evidence and paper talk. Most people have been saying we should wait for the evidence before judging.

In the other it's straight from the horses mouth. The evidence of him talking nonsense is first hand from the man himself.

How can you not see the difference? They're totally different and it's hard to know what you're even trying to imply by relating them? What's your point even if it was correct? People are ok with potential abuse but not sovereign citizens??

Edited July 15, 2023 by IAmNick

[BigTone]

54 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I didn’t see this before I made the thread title, but here’s Rickie again on the subject of water.

Having presumably just watched Ghostbusters 2.

 

Not sure which best describes him

[Baba Yaga]

3 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Because they're clearly not even slightly comparable.

In one case it's purely accusations without or with little evidence and paper talk. Most people have been saying we should wait for the evidence before judging.

In the other it's straight from the horses mouth. The evidence of him talking nonsense is first hand from the man himself.

How can you not see the difference? They're totally different and it's hard to know what you're even trying to imply by relating them? What's your point even if it was correct? People are ok with potential abuse but not sovereign citizens??

I'm comparing the quality of information (long winded posts with context and multiple sides of story for Huw vs little snippets of one side for Le Tiss). That's the difference I am referring to and suggesting it's due to your blinders rather than any more meaningful moral stand point. Like I have already mentioned more context and another side of the story is out there for Le Tiss should you wish to see that but probably you don't.

[Sleepy1968]

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

Should be easy as presumably they're not using any of the water, electricity, roads, or healthcare that the government provides so they're probably a bit stuck.

I'm not sure how they managed to post online, maybe they consent to Virgin media and the government control over the internet?

They access the internet via disassembled microwave ovens.

[italian dave]

6 hours ago, 2015 said:

In todays world:

Opinions you don't agree with: Bad

Sexual acts with someone who is 17: Perfectly fine

Lost me mate.

Who's performed sexual acts with someone who's 17?

Who's said that's fine?

[SecretSam]

23 hours ago, CyderInACan said:

Le Tiss was a genius as a player but turns out he’s a bit of a bellend. 

"A bit"?!?!? 

[redkev]

On 15/07/2023 at 08:44, Silvio Dante said:

Looking forward to Francis Benali dressing  as Che Guervara next.

 

Lambert , typical scouser anti every thing apart from being a victim 

[redkev]

21 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Wow, used to see him at school drop offs, his son was in my daughter’s class at Emerson’s!

Was there a Phil horseman who played local football back in the day Dave , sure I use to play against him 

he scored lots of goals ( no I wasn’t marking him )

[Gimme Shelton]

21 hours ago, Baba Yaga said:

It's weird reading through the Huw Edwards thread and it seems the main people defending Huw last few days are here today having a dig. On Le Tiss I watched him get interviewed by Simon Jordan a few weeks ago and think he comes across as a pretty sound person in a longer format than twitter.

Not weird at all,it's what these hypocrites do. Substitute Andrew Neil for Huw Edwards and the Guardian for the Sun and they would be jumping up and down with joy.

[spudski]

This is what Lambert is talking about.

Findings by this man. Questioned by some. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

This man sums up the way we look at research science now perfectly.

 

[IAmNick]

26 minutes ago, spudski said:

This is what Lambert is talking about.

Findings by this man. Questioned by some. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

This man sums up the way we look at research science now perfectly.

 

That second video is the biggest load of nonsense I've seen in quite a while.

Do you know many people who've recently come out of university with a masters or PhD out of interest? I do. One is currently working at CERN and got a good laugh from that video so thanks for that at least.

[Bazooka Joe]

22 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

For those of you who want to talk about Huw Edwards, please go to the bloody Huw Edwards thread. I don’t have the patience to go through all that again.

Thanks.

Guess what you're really saying is "Flick Huw !"

[spudski]

17 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

That second video is the biggest load of nonsense I've seen in quite a while.

Do you know many people who've recently come out of university with a masters or PhD out of interest? I do. One is currently working at CERN and got a good laugh from that video so thanks for that at least.

Your response doesn't surprise me.

As for your second paragraph...

You sound like a small child ' Oooo I know someone who works at CERN...how many Masters or PHD do you know? 

Really...is that your argument ?

My dad's bigger than your dad...ner ner ner ner ner...kinnel

With your closed mind, and the point the man was making...Is that fringe science is often where new theories and answers are found. 

Those only focussed on peer reviewed with closed minds will never progress outside of those theories. 

In the same way this man was dismissed...by peers who couldn't understand him. Seen as the best in their game at the time. Because he was different. But proven to be a genius and made huge steps in understanding and changing theories, that we now use. He changed everything, put his peers originally dismissed him.

They even made a film about him. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

 

[spudski]

Taken from Harvard Education...

Potential problems of peer review

Because of how overwhelming the review process can be, the results are not always consistent between different articles and journals. Particularly, the decisions of reviewers can be inconsistent. One study showed that recently published articles, when resubmitted a few months later, are often rejected by the same journal – most of the reviewers did not detect that it was a resubmission, and the articles were frequently rejected due to “methodological flaws,” showing the volatility of reviewer decisions. This may be due in part to the disparities in opinions between reviewers, making it very difficult to submit a paper that will be liked by all of the reviewers. In fact, another study did a probability analysis and showed that it was so unlikely and unpredictable to get two reviewers to agree, that getting a paper accepted by  both reviewers has a similar probability to throwing a dice.

Additionally, reviewers are of course humans too! They will sometimes miss critical information in a paper or have personal biases when reviewing, causing dubious research to sometimes be published. Furthermore, another study shows that there may be a bias in favor of the institutions that the reviewers themselves are affiliated with. After all this work, published, peer-reviewed works can still be retracted, with one of the most notable examples of this being from a few decades ago, in which a paper was published in the Lancet that linked autism to vaccines (Figure 2). This paper was later retracted for many reasons, including data manipulation, low sample size, conflicts of interest, and countless other pieces of evidence contradicting the claims. As you can see, not every paper that is peer-reviewed is a mistake-free paper with good science.

There is also a gender bias in selecting reviewers – despite a significant portion of researchers being women, women make up a much smaller fraction of reviewers. This survey observed that authors, regardless of gender, suggest mostly male peers as reviewers to their editors (Figure 3). Along these same lines, another paper determined that female reviewers are less likely to be chosen by peers than if a reviewer was randomly selected. This widespread gender bias may then lead to further biases in the review process. This same study showed that there are fewer female authors publishing than what is expected based on the population of female researchers, possibly due to a gender bias similar to the one present in reviewer selection.

[IAmNick]

11 minutes ago, spudski said:

Your response doesn't surprise me.

As for your second paragraph...

You sound like a small child ' Oooo I know someone who works at CERN...how many Masters or PHD do you know? 

Really...is that your argument ?

My dad's bigger than your dad...ner ner ner ner ner...kinnel

With your closed mind, and the point the man was making...Is that fringe science is often where new theories and answers are found. 

Those only focussed on peer reviewed with closed minds will never progress outside of those theories. 

In the same way this man was dismissed...by peers who couldn't understand him. Seen as the best in their game at the time. Because he was different. But proven to be a genius and made huge steps in understanding and changing theories, that we now use. He changed everything, put his peers originally dismissed him.

They even made a film about him. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

 

No need to be so defensive.

I'm surprised you're taking your knowledge from a YouTube video that's all. There's an irony disparaging mainstream science and our scientific process by means of an under 2 minute YouTube video.

AND his example of the lightbulb is awful as it was built on years and years of gradual mainstream scientific research. It wasn't a fringe idea at all. It makes no sense.  Electric light was first shown about 40 years before the lightbulb and was a worldwide research effort.

Even if some good ideas do come from leftfield that doesn't mean all leftfield ideas should be. Especially when they come from Ricky Lambert and are about water being able to feel and store human emotions or something.

15 minutes ago, spudski said:

Taken from Harvard Education...

Potential problems of peer review

Because of how overwhelming the review process can be, the results are not always consistent between different articles and journals. Particularly, the decisions of reviewers can be inconsistent. One study showed that recently published articles, when resubmitted a few months later, are often rejected by the same journal – most of the reviewers did not detect that it was a resubmission, and the articles were frequently rejected due to “methodological flaws,” showing the volatility of reviewer decisions. This may be due in part to the disparities in opinions between reviewers, making it very difficult to submit a paper that will be liked by all of the reviewers. In fact, another study did a probability analysis and showed that it was so unlikely and unpredictable to get two reviewers to agree, that getting a paper accepted by  both reviewers has a similar probability to throwing a dice.

Additionally, reviewers are of course humans too! They will sometimes miss critical information in a paper or have personal biases when reviewing, causing dubious research to sometimes be published. Furthermore, another study shows that there may be a bias in favor of the institutions that the reviewers themselves are affiliated with. After all this work, published, peer-reviewed works can still be retracted, with one of the most notable examples of this being from a few decades ago, in which a paper was published in the Lancet that linked autism to vaccines (Figure 2). This paper was later retracted for many reasons, including data manipulation, low sample size, conflicts of interest, and countless other pieces of evidence contradicting the claims. As you can see, not every paper that is peer-reviewed is a mistake-free paper with good science.

There is also a gender bias in selecting reviewers – despite a significant portion of researchers being women, women make up a much smaller fraction of reviewers. This survey observed that authors, regardless of gender, suggest mostly male peers as reviewers to their editors (Figure 3). Along these same lines, another paper determined that female reviewers are less likely to be chosen by peers than if a reviewer was randomly selected. This widespread gender bias may then lead to further biases in the review process. This same study showed that there are fewer female authors publishing than what is expected based on the population of female researchers, possibly due to a gender bias similar to the one present in reviewer selection.

If anyone was arguing the peer review process was perfect you might have some kind of point!

[spudski]

24 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

No need to be so defensive.

I'm surprised you're taking your knowledge from a YouTube video that's all. There's an irony disparaging mainstream science and our scientific process by means of an under 2 minute YouTube video.

AND his example of the lightbulb is awful as it was built on years and years of gradual mainstream scientific research. It wasn't a fringe idea at all. It makes no sense.  Electric light was first shown about 40 years before the lightbulb and was a worldwide research effort.

Even if some good ideas do come from leftfield that doesn't mean all leftfield ideas should be. Especially when they come from Ricky Lambert and are about water being able to feel and store human emotions or something.

If anyone was arguing the peer review process was perfect you might have some kind of point!

And there's no need to be a dick in your original response.

I wasn't being defensive...I was pointing out your argument was based on you knowing people who worked at CERN and had PHDs etc. 

I also know people in different Sciences with PHDs etc some aquentances, some close friends, where we have great debates regarding all subjects over a pint or two ...but I wouldn't use that as bench mark to judge myself. 

In doing so it simply negates and dilutes anything you say. 

I take any knowledge from all sources. I thought it was worth sharing as I agree with his views. 

CERN also have a YouTube channel with nearly 200,000 followers. 

Many institutes do. 

So to dismiss my ' knowledge' because it partly came from a YouTube source, shows how incredibly hypocritical your argument is...when you sight CERN as a great example...when they use the very same platform. 

[Bristol Rob]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

Taken from Harvard Education...

Potential problems of peer review

Because of how overwhelming the review process can be, the results are not always consistent between different articles and journals. Particularly, the decisions of reviewers can be inconsistent. One study showed that recently published articles, when resubmitted a few months later, are often rejected by the same journal – most of the reviewers did not detect that it was a resubmission, and the articles were frequently rejected due to “methodological flaws,” showing the volatility of reviewer decisions. This may be due in part to the disparities in opinions between reviewers, making it very difficult to submit a paper that will be liked by all of the reviewers. In fact, another study did a probability analysis and showed that it was so unlikely and unpredictable to get two reviewers to agree, that getting a paper accepted by  both reviewers has a similar probability to throwing a dice.

Additionally, reviewers are of course humans too! They will sometimes miss critical information in a paper or have personal biases when reviewing, causing dubious research to sometimes be published. Furthermore, another study shows that there may be a bias in favor of the institutions that the reviewers themselves are affiliated with. After all this work, published, peer-reviewed works can still be retracted, with one of the most notable examples of this being from a few decades ago, in which a paper was published in the Lancet that linked autism to vaccines (Figure 2). This paper was later retracted for many reasons, including data manipulation, low sample size, conflicts of interest, and countless other pieces of evidence contradicting the claims. As you can see, not every paper that is peer-reviewed is a mistake-free paper with good science.

There is also a gender bias in selecting reviewers – despite a significant portion of researchers being women, women make up a much smaller fraction of reviewers. This survey observed that authors, regardless of gender, suggest mostly male peers as reviewers to their editors (Figure 3). Along these same lines, another paper determined that female reviewers are less likely to be chosen by peers than if a reviewer was randomly selected. This widespread gender bias may then lead to further biases in the review process. This same study showed that there are fewer female authors publishing than what is expected based on the population of female researchers, possibly due to a gender bias similar to the one present in reviewer selection.

That doesn't touch on the impact factor of the journey that the paper has been submitted.

Nature with a really high impact factor have far more stringent measures than journals that have a lower impact factor.

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

Taken from Harvard Education...

Potential problems of peer review

Because of how overwhelming the review process can be, the results are not always consistent between different articles and journals. Particularly, the decisions of reviewers can be inconsistent. One study showed that recently published articles, when resubmitted a few months later, are often rejected by the same journal – most of the reviewers did not detect that it was a resubmission, and the articles were frequently rejected due to “methodological flaws,” showing the volatility of reviewer decisions. This may be due in part to the disparities in opinions between reviewers, making it very difficult to submit a paper that will be liked by all of the reviewers. In fact, another study did a probability analysis and showed that it was so unlikely and unpredictable to get two reviewers to agree, that getting a paper accepted by  both reviewers has a similar probability to throwing a dice.

Additionally, reviewers are of course humans too! They will sometimes miss critical information in a paper or have personal biases when reviewing, causing dubious research to sometimes be published. Furthermore, another study shows that there may be a bias in favor of the institutions that the reviewers themselves are affiliated with. After all this work, published, peer-reviewed works can still be retracted, with one of the most notable examples of this being from a few decades ago, in which a paper was published in the Lancet that linked autism to vaccines (Figure 2). This paper was later retracted for many reasons, including data manipulation, low sample size, conflicts of interest, and countless other pieces of evidence contradicting the claims. As you can see, not every paper that is peer-reviewed is a mistake-free paper with good science.

There is also a gender bias in selecting reviewers – despite a significant portion of researchers being women, women make up a much smaller fraction of reviewers. This survey observed that authors, regardless of gender, suggest mostly male peers as reviewers to their editors (Figure 3). Along these same lines, another paper determined that female reviewers are less likely to be chosen by peers than if a reviewer was randomly selected. This widespread gender bias may then lead to further biases in the review process. This same study showed that there are fewer female authors publishing than what is expected based on the population of female researchers, possibly due to a gender bias similar to the one present in reviewer selection.

An interesting paper……but has it been peer reviewed?

[Dr Balls]

32 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

That doesn't touch on the impact factor of the journey that the paper has been submitted.

Nature with a really high impact factor have far more stringent measures than journals that have a lower impact factor.

As someone who regularly peer reviews for journals and submits research papers that are subject to peer review to get published, I know it’s far from perfect and often frustrating going through multiple drafts to end up with something very similar to what you submitted in the first place. Ideally all peer reviewers would identify themselves, both to those submitting and names of reviewers would be attached to the published paper for those reading it. This is what I do when that is available, so that any biases are clear. Also it’s sometimes an onerous task reviewing as you end up near rewriting the whole paper to improve it into something that stands up to scrutiny and makes sense (often more input than many of the authors) but then get no recognition, and no monetary reward either. I hate rubbishing someone else’s research, and often feel a bit guilty pointing out all the errors that the authors have made, because I can appreciate how much time and effort may have gone into it, and that a future career may ride on it, but science should be rigorous as well as a matter of co-operation and collaboration leading to a better understanding.

The point is that the peer review process may not be perfect and could be improved, but it is far better that than the completely unregulated “Wild West” in terms of those publications that have flourished with the rise of online publishing that perform no real scrutiny whatsoever to what is submitted, but just charge to publish. That’s an open door for every crackpot wacko theory out there!

[Miah Dennehy]

On 15/07/2023 at 08:48, glynriley said:

Lambert didn’t mention the gAss. That’ll have em fuming. 

Bearing in mind what he said, I was quite pleased.

[redkev]

4 hours ago, redkev said:

Was there a Phil horseman who played local football back in the day Dave , sure I use to play against him 

he scored lots of goals ( no I wasn’t marking him )

Sorry was thinking of a Phil Rugman 

[Murraysrightplum]

Floating turds?

[Lanterne Rouge]

8 minutes ago, Murraysrightplum said:

Floating turds?

Ferries to the Isle Of Wight?

[underhanded]

 

 

[maxjak]

On 15/07/2023 at 09:01, GlastonburyRed said:

LeTiss has gone complete conspiracy theorist over the past few years, deary me!

I think he has been spending too much alone time up in his bedroom on the internet?  

[maxjak]

On 15/07/2023 at 12:09, Silvio Dante said:

I didn’t see this before I made the thread title, but here’s Rickie again on the subject of water.

Having presumably just watched Ghostbusters 2.

Thank God.....that is now so much clearer.........and.such an articulate speaker.

 

[Red Ferret]

More evidence that letting kids head footballs while growing up can lead to irreversible brain damage 

[Ronnie Sinclair]

I like to think I'm an open-minded sort of bloke. but Jesus wept Le Tissier makes David Icke look sane 

[Northern Red]