DavidsonCats.com

No, he's not right. Sure the Celtics run great sets. They have a brilliant coach. But those great sets and brilliant coaching are not harder to defend than the superior players that the Warriors have. Not close. Coach Lue is the same delusional guy who recently claimed that he has the hardest job in the NBA.

ChantillyCat wrote:Not the first time this sort of thing has been done, and we might not all agree on exactly where the stupidity is, but I got a kick out of it.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32724/

Wait, I was told peer review meant the findings became proven fact. I'm confused.

stan wrote:

ChantillyCat wrote:Not the first time this sort of thing has been done, and we might not all agree on exactly where the stupidity is, but I got a kick out of it.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32724/

Wait, I was told peer review meant the findings became proven fact. I'm confused.

I thought it was the guy at an adjacent urinal checking out other social constructs.

Waitress wrote:

stan wrote:Wait, I was told peer review meant the findings became proven fact. I'm confused.

I thought it was the guy at an adjacent urinal checking out other social constructs.

I'm against peer review as set forth by Waitress. It really annoys me when other people peek my curiosity.

stan wrote:

ChantillyCat wrote:Not the first time this sort of thing has been done, and we might not all agree on exactly where the stupidity is, but I got a kick out of it.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32724/

Wait, I was told peer review meant the findings became proven fact. I'm confused.

You can find a journal that will find reviewers willing to pretend to be experts in anything if you're willing to lower your own standards enough.

There used to be a curated list of journals and publishers that used papers like this as their bread and butter, but the guy who curated that list for years got shut down by his University employer. Perhaps Waitress knows why.

slowcat95 wrote:

stan wrote:

ChantillyCat wrote:Not the first time this sort of thing has been done, and we might not all agree on exactly where the stupidity is, but I got a kick out of it.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32724/

Wait, I was told peer review meant the findings became proven fact. I'm confused.

You can find a journal that will find reviewers willing to pretend to be experts in anything if you're willing to lower your own standards enough.

There used to be a curated list of journals and publishers that used papers like this as their bread and butter, but the guy who curated that list for years got shut down by his University employer. Perhaps Waitress knows why.

This?
https://archive.fo/ccy2R

Waitress wrote:

slowcat95 wrote:

stan wrote:

ChantillyCat wrote:Not the first time this sort of thing has been done, and we might not all agree on exactly where the stupidity is, but I got a kick out of it.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32724/

Wait, I was told peer review meant the findings became proven fact. I'm confused.

You can find a journal that will find reviewers willing to pretend to be experts in anything if you're willing to lower your own standards enough.

There used to be a curated list of journals and publishers that used papers like this as their bread and butter, but the guy who curated that list for years got shut down by his University employer. Perhaps Waitress knows why.

This?
https://archive.fo/ccy2R

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

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... d-politics (interesting comments)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3mnSnkgM4s

38:18 through 39:18.

True?

Waitress wrote:

Waitress wrote:

slowcat95 wrote:

stan wrote:

ChantillyCat wrote:Not the first time this sort of thing has been done, and we might not all agree on exactly where the stupidity is, but I got a kick out of it.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32724/

Wait, I was told peer review meant the findings became proven fact. I'm confused.

You can find a journal that will find reviewers willing to pretend to be experts in anything if you're willing to lower your own standards enough.

There used to be a curated list of journals and publishers that used papers like this as their bread and butter, but the guy who curated that list for years got shut down by his University employer. Perhaps Waitress knows why.

This?
https://archive.fo/ccy2R

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

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... d-politics (interesting comments)

That's the one

ChantillyCat wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3mnSnkgM4s

38:18 through 39:18.

True?

https://theconversation.com/hate-the-pe ... -too-27405

Wikipedia suggests that clinical peer review has a thousand-year history.

Also, maybe a journal didn't need a lot of peer review when the editor was Max Planck.

Sad.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... d-DUI.html

stevelee wrote:Also, maybe a journal didn't need a lot of peer review when the editor was Max Planck.

Word.

MakeIt-TakeIt Cat wrote:Sad.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... d-DUI.html

With respect to his golf career, I have officially withdrawn from his fandom. As a person, I hope he can become the kind of man his father was. Very sad.

I was a big fan of him as a golfer. If he could still play golf, I'd still be a fan. His off the course activities are of no interest to me. But he can't play golf and hasn't been able to for years. He could still win the occasional tournament. Not a major. Not a chance. There are far too many younger and better players.