|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 17, 2017 7:25:41 GMT -5
Jim asks this question in another thread.
"Curious. In using population models and information acquired from DNR harvest and population data, would his study bias towards the null hypothesis? If not, why not? If so, please explain? Additionally, what statistical testing could other researchers use to test for significance and reliability?"
First of all, "would his study bias" be "studies bias" or "study bias'"? Are we talking about his research or published papers?
I am not saying any of his data is meaningless. I am saying......
Are you saying he isn't biased???
|
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 17, 2017 10:44:54 GMT -5
Jim asks this question in another thread. "Curious. In using population models and information acquired from DNR harvest and population data, would his study bias towards the null hypothesis? If not, why not? If so, please explain? Additionally, what statistical testing could other researchers use to test for significance and reliability?" First of all, "would his study bias" be "studies bias" or "study bias'"? Are we talking about his research or published papers? I am not saying any of his data is meaningless. I am saying...... Are you saying he isn't biased??? Any research worth it's weight tests a hypothesis against the null. If the study is done correctly, bias is irrelevant. I feel what some of you are calling bias is simply a hypothesis. Which, testing a hypothesis is the point of performing the research to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Apr 17, 2017 16:06:44 GMT -5
OTC, just exactly who are you and what do you do for a living? Most folks would not use your words nor have your knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 17, 2017 17:48:12 GMT -5
Jim asks this question in another thread. "Curious. In using population models and information acquired from DNR harvest and population data, would his study bias towards the null hypothesis? If not, why not? If so, please explain? Additionally, what statistical testing could other researchers use to test for significance and reliability?" First of all, "would his study bias" be "studies bias" or "study bias'"? Are we talking about his research or published papers? I am not saying any of his data is meaningless. I am saying...... Are you saying he isn't biased??? Any research worth it's weight tests a hypothesis against the null. If the study is done correctly, bias is irrelevant. I feel what some of you are calling bias is simply a hypothesis. Which, testing a hypothesis is the point of performing the research to begin with. First of all, "would his study bias" be "studies bias" or "study bias'"? Are we talking about his research or published papers? I am not saying any of his data is meaningless. I am saying...... Again I ask, I Dr Jim Braukers' research biased towards Mandatory antler point restrictions or not. It seems to me he leans a little to the left. Am I wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 17, 2017 19:03:21 GMT -5
Any research worth it's weight tests a hypothesis against the null. If the study is done correctly, bias is irrelevant. I feel what some of you are calling bias is simply a hypothesis. Which, testing a hypothesis is the point of performing the research to begin with. First of all, "would his study bias" be "studies bias" or "study bias'"? Are we talking about his research or published papers? I am not saying any of his data is meaningless. I am saying...... Again I ask, I Dr Jim Braukers' research biased towards Mandatory antler point restrictions or not. It seems to me he leans a little to the left. Am I wrong? You guys need to keep in mind that he was against APR's not that long ago. At that time, although he was against them, he was still willing to look at data that may prove his opinion wrong. He didn't look at the data subjectively (biased) like many of you do. Additionally, he also didn't move, manipulate, or otherwise ignore the data to fit his beliefs. He looked at the data objectively. Because of that, he was able to see that the data was completely against his preconceived opinion or belief regarding APR's. That's what researchers do. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 17, 2017 19:24:18 GMT -5
First of all, "would his study bias" be "studies bias" or "study bias'"?
Answer this Jim. Grammar and spelling mean everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 17, 2017 19:25:06 GMT -5
Again I ask,is Dr Jim Braukers' research biased towards Mandatory antler point restrictions or not. It seems to me he leans a little to the left. Am I wrong?
Why can you not admit it?
|
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 17, 2017 20:11:42 GMT -5
Again I ask,is Dr Jim Braukers' research biased towards Mandatory antler point restrictions or not. It seems to me he leans a little to the left. Am I wrong? Why can you not admit it? Not sure. You'd have to ask him. His opinion may be, but that doesn't mean his research is. Personally, I feel he looks at the data objectively. I also feel that if his research showed deleterious effects, he'd be the first to admit it. |
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 17, 2017 20:13:00 GMT -5
First of all, "would his study bias" be "studies bias" or "study bias'"? Answer this Jim. Grammar and spelling mean everything. Would the study bias....Read it exactly how I wrote it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 17, 2017 20:34:22 GMT -5
First of all, "would his study bias" be "studies bias" or "study bias'"? Answer this Jim. Grammar and spelling mean everything. Would the study bias....Read it exactly how I wrote it. Okay...I was a little confused. You hit me with too much intellect. I'm used to insults. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 17, 2017 20:37:02 GMT -5
Again I ask,is Dr Jim Braukers' research biased towards Mandatory antler point restrictions or not. It seems to me he leans a little to the left. Am I wrong? Why can you not admit it? Not sure. You'd have to ask him. His opinion may be, but that doesn't mean his research is. Personally, I feel he looks at the data objectively. I also feel that if his research showed deleterious effects, he'd be the first to admit it. Is Dr Brauker's research in any way biased towards the enacting of mandatory antler point restrictions? Yes or no. |
|
|
|
Post by OTC Acher on Apr 17, 2017 22:02:41 GMT -5
Not sure. You'd have to ask him. His opinion may be, but that doesn't mean his research is. Personally, I feel he looks at the data objectively. I also feel that if his research showed deleterious effects, he'd be the first to admit it. Is Dr Brauker's research in any way biased towards the enacting of mandatory antler point restrictions? Yes or no. Research biased? No. |
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 17, 2017 22:11:52 GMT -5
Would the study bias....Read it exactly how I wrote it. Okay...I was a little confused. You hit me with too much intellect. I'm used to insults. If you don't insult me, or call me out, you will receive no insults from me. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 18, 2017 19:43:33 GMT -5
Is Dr Brauker's research in any way biased towards the enacting of mandatory antler point restrictions? Yes or no. Research biased? No. Touche. Is Dr Jim Brauker biased in any way towards the enactment of mandatory antler point restrictions? And could that in any way affect his research bias? |
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 18, 2017 20:46:32 GMT -5
Touche. Is Dr Jim Brauker biased in any way towards the enactment of mandatory antler point restrictions? And could that in any way affect his research bias? I believe that Jim believes in APR's wholeheartedly. That said, I also believe that he looks at the data objectively. I also believe that, as a researcher, if he were to notice deleterious effects from APR's he would admit it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 18, 2017 20:56:30 GMT -5
Touche. Is Dr Jim Brauker biased in any way towards the enactment of mandatory antler point restrictions? And could that in any way affect his research bias? I believe that Jim believes in APR's wholeheartedly. That said, I also believe that he looks at the data objectively. I also believe that, as a researcher, if he were to notice deleterious effects from APR's he would admit it. So you are saying no. |
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 18, 2017 22:39:32 GMT -5
I believe that Jim believes in APR's wholeheartedly. That said, I also believe that he looks at the data objectively. I also believe that, as a researcher, if he were to notice deleterious effects from APR's he would admit it. So you are saying no. Correct. Because I think he feels the way he does based upon objective data. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 19, 2017 14:28:03 GMT -5
There was that so hard?
Based upon ample evidence, quite a few individuals against APR's would rather attack you personally than discuss the message. Sad, really.
Really sad isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 20, 2017 20:41:32 GMT -5
"Based upon ample evidence, quite a few individuals against APR's would rather attack you personally than discuss the message. Sad, really."
What's the matter Tom(OOPS I meant "Jim") you don't want to touch this one do you?
Who would you be attacking with this post?..... "Oh, I never attack unless I'm attacked, eh?"
It is sad, really.
Any person with as many names as you has no credibility whatsoever. How can you, you are lying just by hiding your past.
When EVERYONE knows it!
ATBGO
|
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 21, 2017 8:08:30 GMT -5
"Based upon ample evidence, quite a few individuals against APR's would rather attack you personally than discuss the message. Sad, really." What's the matter Tom(OOPS I meant "Jim") you don't want to touch this one do you? Who would you be attacking with this post?..... "Oh, I never attack unless I'm attacked, eh?" It is sad, really. Any person with as many names as you has no credibility whatsoever. How can you, you are lying just by hiding your past. When EVERYONE knows it! ATBGO I was speaking in general terms. However, there is ample evidence here and elsewhere attacking Jim personally, as well as myself. In some cases, by naming us in the thread title. Just stating the facts. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 21, 2017 9:53:44 GMT -5
Okay as far as the highly esteemed Dr Brauker, I may go overboard at times. He has shot a few over the bow, you know.
You however are an enigma. We never know who you are.
I have stated before and I will state again, I believe you are FnF , BnB , Otto, Dirtyman, OTCArcher among others. I have other theories as well regarding your web pseudonyms.
Not. Credible at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 21, 2017 10:16:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 21, 2017 10:26:02 GMT -5
So, you'd rather stick with personal attacks then? I'd much rather discuss the issues, as opposed to play "shoot the messenger". So, according to you I'm everyone, yet no-one. LOL. Too funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 21, 2017 10:58:46 GMT -5
So, you'd rather stick with personal attacks then? I'd much rather discuss the issues, as opposed to play "shoot the messenger". So, according to you I'm everyone, yet no-one. LOL. Too funny. You can't answer a serious question can you? No. You are the funny one. What gave you the authority to be the messenger? I am sure you think it is something extraordinary. I do like to discuss the issues, just not with trolls. You come to this site with malice. You don't want to discuss the issues, you want tell us how wrong we are. You post quotes over on MFS,names, and insinuations too. You are after all a nurse, you should be smart. But I guess that doesn't apply here. We can't keep you off of here, you just come back under another name. How can any one person believe anything you post, and by the way many are VERY negative without my help. No credibility what,so, ever, messenger or not! |
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 21, 2017 11:15:19 GMT -5
So, you'd rather stick with personal attacks then? I'd much rather discuss the issues, as opposed to play "shoot the messenger". So, according to you I'm everyone, yet no-one. LOL. Too funny. I'll take your follow up post as yes, you'd like to continue with personal attacks as opposed to discussing the topics on their merits. It's unfortunate. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 21, 2017 11:52:06 GMT -5
I asked a serious question and you turned it around.
Back up and try again.
I was being nice to you trying to understand a minor detail.
You go spreading bullshi on MSF while I was trying to be civil on here. I defend myself here.
How many different names have you had since you first posted something aimed at "Doehead"?
A simple answer.
Sad isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 21, 2017 16:54:20 GMT -5
I asked a serious question and you turned it around. Back up and try again. I was being nice to you trying to understand a minor detail. You go spreading bullshi on MSF while I was trying to be civil on here. I defend myself here. How many different names have you had since you first posted something aimed at "Doehead"? A simple answer. Sad isn't it? Can you please point to the recent post that I referenced you personally? I don't recall ever doing that. I know you made a point of attacking/accusing me of referencing you regarding a post that I made regarding a 4 year history with a 2 year old buck. However, that was not related to you or this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 21, 2017 17:21:07 GMT -5
Nice deflection, that is not what I asked.
I asked how many different names you have used since 2013 in referencing Doehead?
Simple question, complicated answer, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 21, 2017 17:39:16 GMT -5
Nice deflection, that is not what I asked. I asked how many different names you have used since 2013 in referencing Doehead? Simple question, complicated answer, eh? I'm not deflecting. You accused me of calling you out recently. I did no such thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 21, 2017 17:43:13 GMT -5
" You come to this site with malice. You don't want to discuss the issues, you want tell us how wrong we are. You post quotes over on MFS,names, and insinuations too. You are after all a nurse, you should be smart."
Can you answer a simple question or not?
|
|
