I like you deanwitty, I think you're an intelligent person and there is no excuse for someone with your abilities to resort to the tactics you did. I appreciate your measured response to my concerns about your presentation. We can definitely talk and, if not be friends, at least have respect for one another.
My reaction to your demeaning "Ooo, I love pretty graphs" was simply out of frustration.
I'm not sure how you get to demeaning from that comment (especially after I explained what I meant by it)? (but it's not that important either).
Thank you for the citation, I was really hoping for a source I could dig into the data and qualifications. I'm completely positive that if you did dig into Dr. Adelerhof's data/results, you will most certainly find a section where they discuss the
limitations and what they feel you
can and can't reasonably infer from their data as this would be standard for any professional study.
Let me explain further. Please, understand that graphs serve one purpose, to present the data in a way that highlights certain aspects of the data set. As such a graph can bring out trends and patterns that may not otherwise be obvious. That however is the honest use of graphs (as I'm sure Dr. Adelerhof's graphs are). A dishonest person can easily use a graph to completely misrepresent the results by manipulating the graphs parameters and selective presentation of those parameters. As I said, I could take the graph you presented and manipulate it to show almost no difference in the two media types simply by using two different scales and not providing those scales on the graph. It would appear that the two disc are much more similar in properties. Yes, this would be dishonest (in our context but not necessarily always) but it's done all the time in marketing. If marketing were the source of your graph (Falcon Media is a manufacturer of media?), I hope you can understand that I would be much more sceptical? Please, accept my apology if my scepticism of graphs translated in any way to demeaning you.
Edit: Might I also point out that the graphs are not of any media contained in my study, so their relevance to the discussion might also be questioned.
I should have come up with a better allegory to try to illustrate why my interpretation of your data differs from yours.
You feel that since I don't agree with you that somehow I must not understand your point. I do understand your point and I went out of my way to qualify my conclusions to accomodate what are legitimate concerns (separated from the hyperbole). That said, you have to accept what is my opinion and use reason, references, and logic to change that opinion. I assure you I have an open mind and am open to changing it for the right reasons (do you?).
I believe that intelligent people can disagree without hurling personal insults like dishonest, hateful. Please?
Shady tactics are always disarmed by shining a light on them. If you use tactics like that I will point them out for what they are. Please, select your words (epecially with regard to paraphrasing) more carefully.
It seemed an opportune moment to try to spell it out clearly to avoid miscommunication going forward.
Yes, I said you had an axe to grind. That is your agenda. Look, having an agenda is okay and I agree that the Optical Quantum are inconsistent in their quality. But you could absolutely have made that point without one reference to car salesmen or misquoting me, etc.
I'm more than happy to have a
discussion on the merits.