Australian Politics Forum

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53186 At my desk.	Re: Reefgate! Reply #45 - Apr 23^rd, 2010 at 10:29pm pjb05 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2010 at 8:46am: freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 9:43pm: Was that on the front page as well? I didn't see any mention of Pew on the front page - did you? Did you see the mention of GBRMPA on the front page?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Reefgate!
Reply #46 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 7:44am

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2010 at 10:29pm:

pjb05 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2010 at 8:46am:

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 9:43pm:

Was that on the front page as well?

I didn't see any mention of Pew on the front page - did you?

Did you see the mention of GBRMPA on the front page?

Your one and only point (recited parrot fashion), is looking even more shakey with this Pew revelation!

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53186 At my desk.	Re: Reefgate! Reply #47 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 8:46am It is not a revelation. My 'one and only point' was central to the author's entire BS argument. If you want to be taken seriously, try making a serious argument. You could start with with the two interests that you are so sure are in conflict.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Reefgate!
Reply #48 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 8:55am

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 8:46am:

It is not a revelation. My 'one and only point' was central to the author's entire BS argument.

If you want to be taken seriously, try making a serious argument. You could start with with the two interests that you are so sure are in conflict.

I have already stated what the conflicts of interest are. And they are getting bigger the more I look into to it. It now turns out three of the GBRMPA report authors have received Pew fellowships. Needless to say Pew fellows receive very generous financial support.

Your one and only point is not central to Walters argument. What is central is the the biases, flaws and lack of professionalism in the paper he is reviewing. Your one and only point is just a greedy reductionism designed to avoid serious debate on these issues. You have even said yourself you are not going to take me or Walters article seriously.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 24^th, 2010 at 1:21pm by pjb05 »

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53186 At my desk.	Re: Reefgate! Reply #49 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 9:34am They are not conflicts of interest PJ.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1404 Gender:	Re: Reefgate! Reply #50 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 1:16pm freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 9:34am: They are not conflicts of interest PJ. Didn't you say that this is just your opinion, after I put up a dictionary definition of conflict of interest and asked how the reefgate example divirges from the definition?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53186
At my desk.

Re: Reefgate!
Reply #51 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 6:12pm

Your opinion or my opinion?

PJ, it is up to you to make the case. You can't expect people to take you seriously if you merely make the accusation then expect others to make the case for you. Especially after the foot in mouth episode with the GBRMPA funding. All of this seems to rest on some strange assumptions that you and Dr Starck have about any organisation that funds marine research. If you won't put those assumptions on the table, there is nothing to discuss.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Reefgate!
Reply #52 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 6:27pm

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 6:12pm:

Your opinion or my opinion?

PJ, it is up to you to make the case. You can't expect people to take you seriously if you merely make the accusation then expect others to make the case for you. Especially after the foot in mouth episode with the GBRMPA funding. All of this seems to rest on some strange assumptions that you and Dr Starck have about any organisation that funds marine research. If you won't put those assumptions on the table, there is nothing to discuss.

Given that three of the authors turn out to be Pew fellows it looks like you have put your foot in your mouth! I have already explained the case of conflict of interest and supported it with a dictionary definition. To say any more will be repeating myself (unless I find out that even more of the authors have Pew connections).

All this is just a debating tactic on your part to avoid saying anything on the actual report and the validity of it's conclusions (a separate issue to conflict of interest). You cannot just blithely say 'there is nothing to discuss' and have any credibility.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53186
At my desk.

Re: Reefgate!
Reply #53 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 6:40pm

Quote:

To say any more will be repeating myself

So basically, looking up conflict of interest in the dictionary is about the extent of your enquiry into the matter? You didn't even stop to think about what your own assumptions are?

Quote:

All this is just a debating tactic on your part to avoid saying anything on the actual report and the validity of it's conclusions

Not really. It sounds more like you are trying desperately to change the topic now that you have realised there is no conflict of interest.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Reefgate!
Reply #54 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 6:46pm

[] Quote:

To say any more will be repeating myself

So basically, looking up conflict of interest in the dictionary is about the extent of your enquiry into the matter? You didn't even stop to think about what your own assumptions are?

Look back at the posts you twit, I put the dictionary definition alongside my own interpetations/ arguments.

Quote:

All this is just a debating tactic on your part to avoid saying anything on the actual report and the validity of it's conclusions

Not really. It sounds more like you are trying desperately to change the topic now that you have realised there is no conflict of interest.

Really? So where have you offered one word of analysis about the report and validity of it's conclusions?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53186
At my desk.

Re: Reefgate!
Reply #55 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 7:03pm

Quote:

Look back at the posts you twit, I put the dictionary definition alongside my own interpetations/ arguments.

None of your arguments are even close to being convincing about a conflict of itnerest. You struggled to even name the two interests you believe are in conflict, let alone demonstrate a real conflict. Your 'arguments' are more like dancing around whatever assumptions you have that make you think there is a conflict.

Quote:

Really? So where have you offered one word of analysis about the report and validity of it's conclusions?

I would like to address the conflict of interest issue first, if you don't mind.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Reefgate!
Reply #56 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 7:13pm

] Quote:

Look back at the posts you twit, I put the dictionary definition alongside my own interpetations/ arguments.

None of your arguments are even close to being convincing about a conflict of itnerest. You struggled to even name the two interests you believe are in conflict, let alone demonstrate a real conflict. Your 'arguments' are more like dancing around whatever assumptions you have that make you think there is a conflict.

I didn't struggle at all - they are posted here for all to see, as are my logical arguments and a reference defining conflict of interest. Your counter argument was along the lines of 'it's just my opinion'.

Quote:

Really? So where have you offered one word of analysis about the report and validity of it's conclusions?

I would like to address the conflict of interest issue first, if you don't mind.

You haven't added anything of substance on this since you said it's just your opinion. Are you ever going to address the actual report?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53186
At my desk.

Re: Reefgate!
Reply #57 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 7:52pm

I haven't added anything of substance because there is no substrance to begin with. Like I said, anyone who takes Walter Starck seriously ends up looking like a goose, whether they copy and paste his claims or try to counter argue his vaccuus statements.

You are obviously totally unfamiliar with scientific journals or what is expected of the authors. That is why Walter targets his BS at people like you. His peers and the journals he criticises aren't taking this seriously. The only appropriate response to your 'revelations' is "well, duh". I don't even know where to begin, because you can't put in writing your reasons for believing that you and Walter have uncovered something significant. Merely repeating that they work for GBRMPA or are Pew fellows doesn't make your argument. It just demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Reefgate!
Reply #58 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 8:46pm

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 7:52pm:

Merely repeating that they work for GBRMPA or are Pew fellows doesn't make your argument. It just demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about.

Strawman. My argument is how biased and flawed the paper is. The conflict of interest is a side issue. Regarding that, apart from the financial conflict of interest there is the fact that the authors are in fact reviewing their own work and recommendations.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53186
At my desk.

Re: Reefgate!
Reply #59 - Apr 24^th, 2010 at 9:19pm

Quote:

My argument is how biased and flawed the paper is.

Ah. So you are changing the subject. Fine by me. The whole conflict of itnerest thing was getting pretty silly anyway.

Quote:

apart from the financial conflict of interest

Or maybe not.

There is no financial conflict of interest.

Quote:

there is the fact that the authors are in fact reviewing their own work and recommendations

Again you merely demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. The vast majority of authors are reporting their own work. The only time they review the work of others is when they do some kind of meta analysis/literature review. Unless of course you are claiming that that the journal in question got the authors to act as their own 'peer reviewer'. Is that what you are claiming, and if so, do you have any evidence of this?

Seriously PJ, stop regurgitating what Walter Starck says. He is doing you no favours. He is probably sitting back having a good chuckle at your expense.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged