re: #320 Walter L. Newton

Waler, you don’t know the first damn thing about this. I am not even going to go there with you in an effort to actually save you embarrassment.

So before we even go down that little path, I want you to consider the following points:

1. Data was published multiple times with the full error analysis in multiple journals along the way.

2. You wouldn’t have a clue how to analyze the raw data in the first place,

3. At no will you ever be able to show that they ever did anything wrong with their data. The best you can argue is that you are pissed that you can’t follow their code.

4. Of course they know where their data came from. I mean they only would have reported it up and down in any journal article they published.

5. There is a lot more data and it is publicly available even in raw form…

6. You are not a scientist, but don’t let that stop you from presenting yourself as someone in a position to judge jack or shit - as if you would be objective?

Sorry Walter, just don’t even try. I am just not going to play with you.