|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
 Posted - 02/25/2012 : 07:51:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You're up early on a Saturday morning...
|
Research work. The lap dancer kept me up all night.
 |
 |
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 01:51:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
jamalrapper:
I sympathize with you Kil. But I don't believe by this site being more liberal than the other sites is driving people away. |
First off, you just changed the subject. Next, I have been told by some old members that they were leaving because we were allowing too much incivility by visitors, and to some extent by our long standing members. But If you wish to call me a liar about that, what can I do? I'll tell you what. I don't really care.
|
By you own admission Kil, you have been denied access on many sites and you attributed that to them being strict with their rules.
Sites that are to restrictive also have their problems.
I suggested you raise the quality of teams responses.
A simple example. Everyone here criticized my reference to AIG site which was the link Halfmooner provided. But that particular article about multicellularity was a article AIG reports that was published by Science News.
That only shows how biased this group is. They don't even read what is being posted properly.
DaveW then post the PNAS original article after I provided 2 other links. But here DaveW accuses me of lying for saying they starved the yeast which according to his reading/understanding of the PNAS article they did not and that I was lying.
1. I said they starved the yeast to Bill before the PNAS link was posted. Information I got from other links that used the word starved.
2. DaveW himself did not read his own PNAS link properly because Halfmooner 2 post later pointed it out Ratcliff did mention as part of his experiment he starved the yeast.
That is what I mean by getting your team to prepare their responses better. This will save a lot of back and forth accusations if they read, understand and frame their questions intelligently.
This is a public forum and some professionalism is expected especially from the moderators and admins. If you hired qualified people with peoples skills, some depth in knowledge. I am sure members and the public will have a much more enjoyable experience here.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 05:02:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
But here DaveW accuses me of lying for saying they starved the yeast which according to his reading/understanding of the PNAS article they did not and that I was lying. |
This statement contains a lie of omission.| 1. I said they starved the yeast to Bill before the PNAS link was posted. Information I got from other links that used the word starved. |
Yes, you posted in ignorance.| 2. DaveW himself did not read his own PNAS link properly because Halfmooner 2 post later pointed it out Ratcliff did mention as part of his experiment he starved the yeast. |
The lie of omission again.| That is what I mean by getting your team to prepare their responses better. |
The response was prepared just fine, it is your insistence upon ignoring the context that is the problem here.| This is a public forum and some professionalism is expected... |
Then why not use some yourself? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 07:37:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
But here DaveW accuses me of lying for saying they starved the yeast which according to his reading/understanding of the PNAS article they did not and that I was lying. |
This statement contains a lie of omission. |
Are you saying here again Ratcliff did not starve any of his test samples. Are you forgetting Halfmooners post correcting that.
Halfmooner wrote From the above paper: referring to your PNAS link.
From the above paper:
we starved yeast by culturing them on solid YPD media for 5 d. Pseudohyphae were readily observed in both strains (C and D). |
| jamalrapper wrote:1. I said they starved the yeast to Bill before the PNAS link was posted. Information I got from other links that used the word starved. |
| DaveW wrote" Yes, you posted in ignorance. |
How is that ignorance when research papers explained how filament growth appears in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Ratclifs paper is not about Saccharomyces cerevisiae. It is his experiment with Saccharomyces cerevisiae to demonstrate single to multicellularity transition in the lab.
2. DaveW himself did not read his own PNAS link properly because Halfmooner 2 post later pointed it out Ratcliff did mention as part of his experiment he starved the yeast.
| Dave repeats himself" The lie of omission again. |
Halfmooner posted 2 post below DaveW post showing the error. If DaveW actually read his own link PNAS he would have found the mention of starved by Ratcliff...but he did not or could not follow the paper. The omission was certainly his.
The fact that his team have stopped supporting his position is indictive of his untenable position.
DaveW, You can fool some people all the time. You can fool some people sometime. But you cannot fool all the people all the time. Get an education....or stick to coding...BTW you need to know a computer language before you can code.
Are we to read? When you say you love coding you actually mean other peoples coding.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 08:25:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Are you saying here again Ratcliff did not starve any of his test samples. |
No, I'm saying that you're lying because you refuse to acknowledge that Ratcliff didn't starve his yeast during the selection process that led to the snowflake phenotype.| How is that ignorance when research papers explained how filament growth appears in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Ratclifs paper is not about Saccharomyces cerevisiae. It is his experiment with Saccharomyces cerevisiae to demonstrate single to multicellularity transition in the lab. |
A paper in which Ratcliff both mentions and tests whether or not his snowflake phenotype is due to pseudohyphal growth, and so you clearly lied when you claimed that Ratcliff either "hid" or did not know about pseudohyphae.| Halfmooner posted 2 post below DaveW post showing the error. If DaveW actually read his own link PNAS he would have found the mention of starved by Ratcliff...but he did not or could not follow the paper. The omission was certainly his. |
No, it's still yours. The context of discussion was the selection process. Ratcliff did not starve the yeast during the selection process which led to the snowflake phenotype.| The fact that his team have stopped supporting his position is indictive of his untenable position. |
No, this is just you trolling.| DaveW, You can fool some people all the time. You can fool some people sometime. But you cannot fool all the people all the time. Get an education....or stick to coding...BTW you need to know a computer language before you can code. |
And we're back to baseless personal attacks.| Are we to read? When you say you love coding you actually mean other peoples coding. |
Yeah, you've got nothing more than lies and idiocy, justintime. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 09:01:07 [Permalink]
|
DaveW. You are just skirting the main problem which is your ignorance.
You ask after 14 pages of discussion a question that must have confounded you from the beginning. Is S. cerevisiae unicellular or multicellular? But you ask that after 14 pages and in the wrong thread. You should have posted it here where it belongs. Rage is blinding you DaveW. You cannot read, think, or overwhelmed with the few threads that are proving beyond your pay grade.
| DaveW asked after 14 pages of yeast discussion on the Ratcliff experiment: So is S. cerevisiae unicellular or multicellular? |
And he ask the question in the wrong thread |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 10:25:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why won't you answer the question?
|
How many more times?
I noticed even on your own website you put up a disclaimer. So you do not even stand behind your own research and explicitly warn others not to use, misuse information presented on your website.
What kind of standards are you setting for SFN?
I read somewhere you were very excited when you got accepted at SFN. I can see it as a move up with your level of expertise.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 12:17:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why won't you answer the question? |
How many more times? |
Just once would be fine. Instead, you dance around, claiming that you've answered the question when you really haven't. Case in point:Originally posted by jamalrapper
You are just repeating yourself, DaveW. I already tried to help you understand the difference. |
I'm not asking about the difference, I'm asking which category (unicellular or multicellular) you think S. cerevisiae falls into.| You keep saying you are not asking because you don't know the correct answer. So you are asking to see if I know. |
No, I'm asking to find out what you think.| But I have already told you several times what they are. |
No, you've been yammering about how I don't know the difference. Not once since I asked have you said either, "S. cerevisiae is unicellular" or "S. cerevisiae is multicellular."| So how can you say you are still not asking because you don't know the correct answer,(that sound like a double negative) when even after I have given you the answer in so many earlier post, it just escapes you. |
You haven't answered the question at all, since your latest explanation, "How many times does he have to be told saccharomyces cerevisiae under normal conditions will develop as a unicellular organism. Under stress/starvation they will develop as a multicellular organism and go through a stage of filamentous grown known as pseudohyphae," clearly contradicts your earlier statement that pseudohyphae don't make an organism multicellular. Now you're claiming that pseudohyphal yeast is multicellular? Make up your mind.| That is what you call a learning disability. |
No, it's what I call trolling.I noticed even on your own website you put up a disclaimer. So you do not even stand behind your own research and explicitly warn others not to use, misuse information presented on your website.
What kind of standards are you setting for SFN?
I read somewhere you were very excited when you got accepted at SFN. I can see it as a move up with your level of expertise. |
More irrelevant personal attacks.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 12:20:49 [Permalink]
|
| Read my posts again. It is there. If you cannot find it. Then declare it so when I point it out to you you will no longer be able to say your reading skills are not below grade 6 level. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 12:41:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Read my posts again. It is there. If you cannot find it. Then declare it so when I point it out to you you will no longer be able to say your reading skills are not below grade 6 level. |
Please! Link to the post in which you answered the question, and quote the answer. Don't be afraid. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 13:10:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Read my posts again. It is there. If you cannot find it. Then declare it so when I point it out to you you will no longer be able to say your reading skills are not below grade 6 level. |
Please! Link to the post in which you answered the question, and quote the answer. Don't be afraid.
|
Please respond to the question. You have the option of going through all my post or agreeing if you missed it it is because your reading skills are poor. What is there to be afraid off. You are the one stuck.
I already stated my position and explanation for it regarding Ratcliff's experiment. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 13:37:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Please respond to the question. |
What question?| You have the option of going through all my post... |
Why would I do that? It's your claim (that you answered my question), why should I do any work to support it?| ...or agreeing if you missed it it is because your reading skills are poor. |
If I missed it. That's your claim. Provide evidence that I missed anything.| What is there to be afraid off. |
If there's nothing to be afraid of, then why refuse to link to proof that you're correct?Stuck?| I already stated my position and explanation for it regarding Ratcliff's experiment. |
And I'm not asking about your position regarding Ratcliff's experiment.
I'm asking this: Do you, jamalrapper, think that S. cerevisiae should be categorized as a unicellular or multicellular organism? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 14:21:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Please respond to the question. |
What question?| You have the option of going through all my post... |
Why would I do that? It's your claim (that you answered my question), why should I do any work to support it?| ...or agreeing if you missed it it is because your reading skills are poor. |
If I missed it. That's your claim. Provide evidence that I missed anything.| What is there to be afraid off. |
If there's nothing to be afraid of, then why refuse to link to proof that you're correct?Stuck?| I already stated my position and explanation for it regarding Ratcliff's experiment. |
And I'm not asking about your position regarding Ratcliff's experiment.
I'm asking this: Do you, jamalrapper, think that S. cerevisiae should be categorized as a unicellular or multicellular organism?
|
The S. cerevisiae is a unicellular organism with multicellular ancestry. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 14:27:07 [Permalink]
|
See? That wasn't so hard, was it?Originally posted by jamalrapper
The S. cerevisiae is a unicellular organism... |
So why did you say that Ratcliff should have used a single-celled brewer's yeast? If S. cerevisiae is unicellular, then Ratcliff did use a single-celled brewer's yeast, didn't he?| ...with multicellular ancestry. |
All yeasts have that same ancestry, so why did you say that Ratcliff should have used a different brewer's yeast? Switching from one brewer's yeast to a different brewer's yeast wouldn't have changed anything about the yeast having a multicellular ancestry. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days
