View Single Post
 
Old 02-04-2010, 12:19 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by downunder View Post
I would just like to say that I have been following this thread and the earlier one, and while I don't know much about the thesis or the circuit involved, I have been a neutral observer to all that has transpired.

The earlier thread was largely co-operative and friendly in nature, and seemed to achieve great things. Then the writing of this "paper" and attempt to get it published appeared to cause some friction, culminating in the current sad state of this thread.

From all that I have read, there appears to be at least two main causes for this conflict.

1. Email communications were disrupted, possibly intentionally by someone wanting to cause harm to your work.

2. Misunderstandings caused conflict, possibly due to the disrupted communications.

I do not see anything to suggest that anyone involved in this excellent work has or had ulterior motives at any time, and it seems clear to me that the personal attacks in this thread are due to misunderstandings.

For example, the definition of "replication" seems to vary from one person to another. To some people a replication must be an exact copy of the original in every way or they consider it to be something completely different. Other people consider an attempt to replicate (even if the end result is different in some ways) to be near enough to consider it a replication.

As a completely neutral observer with no personal agenda, I ask everyone participating in this thread to please think carefully about what others say/type. Don't assume that your first interpretation is the correct one, especially if it seems insulting or otherwise negative. The english language is full of ambiguities, especially in written form when a person's tone of voice and body language can not help to indicate the true meaning of their message. This problem can be made even worse when english is not the primary language for someone participating in a conversation.

Rather than assuming the worst of each other, pointing fingers and flinging insults, why not take a deep breath, calm down, and try to work everything out like the mature adults that I am sure you are in every day life.

The survival of your work, paper, and possibly human lives could depend on your ability to forgive, forget, and work well together again. Go on, kiss, hug and make up.

downunder. I've seen you on the thread often. You have given very good advice to us all here and I must say. Very well put. I have no way of showing my body language at this side of the keyboard. But believe me I am MORE THAN WILLING to stretch across the proverbial pond and shake hands with Glen and, for that matter with Harvey. There is no need to quarrel. But unless it is accepted that there is a replication - in every sense, then my input here is meaningless. I am not angry. I trust the reasoned arguments I've put forward will attest to this. I am still working on the exercise as to why this is a full replication. At last I have Harvey's reasons why it is not that I know how to argue this. But I first need clearance of my argument with an expert. When that is to hand I will post it. Until then - please know this. It is as painful for me to work here as it is for you all to read this. But I am fighting a corner here - or a principle. And this one I am more than happy to die for. As they say, 'over my dead body'. Not a euphemism. A promise. And I am using the very best of what little energy I have from sleeplessness and anxiety, to argue this as best I can.
__________________