You could try answering the question.

I'm not a doctor but I know what an a**e looks like.

I'll take the stupid comments as evidence of a win.

…and play your game?

No.

I think it's more fun to dissect your character to be honest.

I'm not a chef but I know what a pudding looks like.

I'm not a gynecologist but I know what a tw……

I'm not a chicken farmer, but i know what a c**k looks like

I'll dissect your character if you want.

I think your parents were incredibly strict and that you are an only child (or you had very little in the way of bonding with your siblings). The former lead to you holding onto your shits as a child – i.e. fixated at the anal stage of development. This has carried on into adulthood and turned you into an anally retentive individual. Combine this with the only child aspect and not only are you anally retentive, but you are a wee bit of an attention seeker. Close? I'd reckon it's bang on the money.

IDave – you learned what a **** looks like through looking in the mirror.

When 99.something prcent of peer reviewed research agrees, its failry likey that its right.

it depends on the "peers" it's very easy to get other researchers/experts in a similar field all using the same excuse for funding to agree beacause it keeps all of them in a job. Far better to throw the document open to all interested parties, with all the supporting evidence and the original source data and see if it stands up to robust srcutiny. If it does then it's farily likely it's not complete bollox. No science is ever completely right.

I think your parents were incredibly strict and that you are an only child (or you had very little in the way of bonding with your siblings). The former lead to you holding onto your shits as a child – i.e. fixated at the anal stage of development. This has carried on into adulthood and turned you into an anally retentive individual. Combine this with the only child aspect and not only are you anally retentive, but you are a wee bit of an attention seeker. Close? I'd reckon it's bang on the money.

Wrong.

But it's not about me.

You are, as I keep saying, a bright fella, but you don't like to show it.

Relax, join in the fun, what's the worst that could happen?

Climate change?
It's definately getting warmer, remember that ice age? If only the dinosaurs had invented the internal combustion engine, they would still be here…

Crikey – what bit of it is wrong? The grammar? Because the rest of it is pretty much bang on the money.

Goan?

Where were you on those author lists again? Just wondering if you have categorical proof that you can design experiments, synthesise results and defend your findings under peer review (like it appears one or two of us on here have a proven record in); or whether you just happened to be passing the prof's door when he submitted those articles, and stuck your name in the middle out of pity…

As you keep saying – answer the question…

"but you are a wee bit of an attention seeker. Close? "

pot? kettle? that's really funny that is

Zokes – 2nd on both of them. Carried out the actual experiments – ultrasonic degradation of wastewater – look it up from 2003 forget which journal.

another night another pointless whine on stw by goan.
if i go away and come back in six months nothing will have changed.
if it was upto me i would ban him.

Because the rest of it is pretty much bang on the money.

No, it's really not.

I note your move towards an aggressive style of posting, getting defensive is such an obvious strategy.

My advice would be to look within yourself, release the frustrated inner man?

Fair enough – I guess somebody else did the thinking and writing, and getting money bit then…

No, it's really not, is not really that good an answer is it? Your reluctance suggests to me that I've got it pretty much 100% correct.

Your attempts to psychoanalyse me would point to you projecting your problems onto me. (I'll stop with this line now as I feel it could lead to **** you up if I pushed it too far)

Zokes – as you would expect considering I was undergrad at the time.

Your reluctance suggests to me that I've got it pretty much 100% correct.

I like the persistence of theme, the 'dog with a bone' approach, suggesting an almost complete avoidance of any earlier conversations.

Bright lad, you really don't need to be ashamed of it.

if it was upto me i would ban him

why? becuase he disagrees with you and your religious/climate beliefs? do not think that's rather a fascist stance to take?

if you don't like it, go outside and play with bikes that's the important thing!

ironic that a harmless post to prod a little fun at someones obsession sees them dive in and re-enforce a commonly held few

its purely down to the constant moan of it all nothing at all to do with his beliefs on anything.your right though i might have a look out the door.

nonk if it's just that he moans like an old biddy then fair enough, have you thought that it's just that he doesnt have propper contact with people 'till pension day?

hadnt thought of that tazzy i shall go tell the family that i am glad they are here.

do you think he has a track pump and some latex sealant?

Zokes – as you would expect considering I was undergrad at the time.

Fair enough. Just wondered what evidence you had that you can demonstrate your ability to design, interpret, and defend your results, theories and ideas against rigorous peer review, as all these 1000s of scientists you are questioning do on a daily basis…

On a separate note though – well done on getting your name on papers as a blundergrad 🙂

Goan, you are making yourself out to be a complete dick, mate, calm down.

As a lazy stupid goldfish*, I should keep my nose out of this, but I thought Goan was asking relevant questions.

*assorted insults from my questions on this subject.