Crapple Iphone... ohh brother...

[BBoBB Sanders]

Halsu, don't waste your time giving out running commentaries and updating who did what in this discussion. You may not have noticed it, but nobody's interested. I think I can speak for almost everyone when I say that the only thing we're interested in is seeing you admit that you're beaten.

Btw, you're still on my Ignore list, so you can call that an "unsolicited comment".

Hey... you have a single purpose in life and it has nothing to do with talking. You just stay on your knees and keep doing your thing. Otherwise Hue will have to take control and start using your ears for handles

[Bob Sanders]

Hey... you have a single purpose in life and it has nothing to do with talking. You just stay on your knees and keep doing your thing. Otherwise Hue will have to take control and start using your ears for handles

Thank you for the comment cousin Bbobb.

[BBoBB Sanders]

Thank you for the comment cousin Bbobb.

No problem.

I just hate it when them little suckers grow a brain and actually think they can talk and think!

[Halsu]

Here's your reply:

http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?4...l=1#post451416

Yup, you did indeed edit out the "operational in the wild" part OF MY QUOTE. Did you really think you could slide that one past me, you sneaky-little-fat cunt.

In that very reply you link to, i reply to your "operational and in the wild" in exact way i have quoted now four times (though slightly shortened for brevity):

The above possibly are, or aren't, i dunno, or care. This addition is goal post shifting, if you plan to use it to drag the discussion to your endless time sink, forget it.

[Halsu]

You've manipulated the quotes to your own little egotistical advantage. Do you really think that if you repeat a fallacy enough times, it will become magically true?

Those are word for word exact quotes from you, you can check each one of them by clicking the fast forward symbol (>>).

You've omitted the support of my claims regarding the article in question. Which is in response to your claim that the article is scientific.

No, i have not. You have not provided any support for those claims, just more unsubstantiated claims, which i then added to your list.

Seriously, man, my six-year nephew's reasoning is more logical than yours.

Ad hominems show once again that you have no valid arguments to support your case.

[Halsu]

Halsu, don't waste your time giving out running commentaries and updating who did what in this discussion. You may not have noticed it, but nobody's interested. I think I can speak for almost everyone when I say that the only thing we're interested in is seeing you admit that you're beaten.

Btw, you're still on my Ignore list, so you can call that an "unsolicited comment".

Oh, i do it just for my own amusement. It's fun to watch Huey tap dance. I do not care if others are interested or not.

As long as this is constrained in this one thread, it shouldn't be a nuissance to others either - they can simply ignore this thread.

[HueyNRolf]

In that very reply you link to, i reply to your "operational and in the wild" in exact way i have quoted now four times (though slightly shortened for brevity):

[/B]

The spotlight pans across and lights Halsu's huge buttocks as he twirls for his finale. The audience gasps as the buttocks emit a huge grunt which reverberates through the house. Screams ring out as they're sprayed with a putrid brown slurry.

Goodbye Halsu

[Halsu]

The spotlight pans across and lights Halsu's huge buttocks as he twirls for his finale. The audience gasps as the buttocks emit a huge grunt which reverberates through the house. Screams ring out as they're sprayed with a putrid brown slurry.

Goodbye Halsu

Thanks for admitting that you were wrong. Now, please provide support for your previous claims, including your new claims that F) my list has straw men in it and G) i manipulated your quotes.

***

Belk & Tümbat 2005:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...53860500160403

Revised list of claims about the above paper Huey has failed to support with evidence, still no progress whatsoever (funny when we think of Huey's own words: "...whenever I ask you to provide evidence to support your claims it drags on too long and goes nowhere."):

A) The paper is not a scientific paper

It's NOT a scientific paper.

B) The authors are not scientists

So I was right, they're not scientists.

C) That the authors have faked the results *** modified to more accurately reflect Huey's claim (from probably to possibly) *** Modified again (from "possibly" to "have")

Clearly all these so called scientists have done is select responses. Presumably to fit the hypothesis.

D) That study of marketing is not a scientific, academic discipline, against all so far presented evidence *** Huey has now admitted this claim was false

E) That the paper in question does not comply with the scientific method

It's not scientific because it doesn't comply with the scientific method.

The proof against Huey's claims:


A) The paper was published as a research paper in a peer reviewed journal, Consumption Markets & Culture

Peer Review Policy:
Articles that are published in Consumption Markets & Culture (CMC) go through a double-blind peer-review process of greatest integrity.

B) The authors are two university professors.

Professor Russel W. Belk, York University:
http://research.schulich.yorku.ca/fa...sp?id=95&tab=0
http://scholar.google.fi/scholar?hl=...1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Associate professor Gülnur Tumbat, San Francisco state university:
http://sfsu.academia.edu/GulnurTumbat
http://scholar.google.fi/scholar?q=%...n&as_sdt=0%2C5

C) It's the default position that scientific research is done honestly. The burden of proof is on those making the claim of fraud.

D) This claim was already admitted by Huey to be false.

E) It's the default position that scientific research is done following the scientific method. The burden of proof is on those making the claim of the opposite. Further, one of the main goals of peer review is to assure that scientific method was adhered to in the research. This paper passed peer review, wich is evidence in support of following the scientific method properly.

Huey's words show that he accepts that the burden of proof is on him:

Sure if I made claims related to those links, then I would have a burden of proof to support such claims.

Firstly, I'll set that aside, because whenever I ask you to provide evidence to support your claims it drags on too long and goes nowhere.

[HueyNRolf]

Ok, just one more question.

This paper passed peer review, wich is evidence in support of following the scientific method properly.

Can you prove this and show which standard of peer review it conforms to?

[Halsu]

Can you prove this and show which standard of peer review it conforms to?

Yes, it's included in the proof against your claim A):

A) The paper was published as a research paper in a peer reviewed journal, Consumption Markets & Culture

Peer Review Policy:
Articles that are published in Consumption Markets & Culture (CMC) go through a double-blind peer-review process of greatest integrity.

As far as double-blind peer review goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_re...yles_of_review

[HueyNRolf]

Yes, it's included in the proof against your claim A):



As far as double-blind peer review goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_re...yles_of_review

Thank you.

[Playing]

I have received this worm that is platform independent:

...//////....
..(o)(o).....
...(__)......
....(_)...... Güden tog (Good day)
.....(_).....
....(_)......
....(_)...... isch bin en hägga aus Leipzsch, (I am a hacker from Leipzig)
...(_).......
...(_)....... un diss iss en selbstprögrammirder (and this is a selfprogrammed)
....(_)......
.....(_)..... bösartscher Compjuderwurm. (evil computer worm.)
......(_)....
......(_)....
.....(_).....
.....(_)..... Da isch noch net sö viel weeß vom Compjuder (As I don’t know much about computers)
....(_)...... iss des en manueller Wurm. (this is a manual worm.)
...(_).......
....(_)......
.....(_).....
......(_).... Also löschen se bidde (So please delete)
......(_)....
.....(_)..... alle Dadeien von de Festpladde (all info on your HDD)
....(_)......
...(_).......
..(_)........
...(_)....... und schickese den Wurm (and sent the worm)
...(_).......
.....(_)..... an alle die se kennen. (to everybody you know.)
......(_)....
......(_)....
.....(_).....
.....(_).....

Vielen Dank für Ihre Mitarbeid. (Thank you for your cooperation.)