StarGateWars Forums

Alex wrote:Not sure as to what you mean by "p-values" and "t-values".

It's a psychology thing: unnecessarily pedantic, and obsessed with self-validation and being immune to the criticisms of other sciences. Everyone knows that the best way of validating research findings is by Peer Review. If it stands up to the scrutiny of your peers, then it's validated.

Greased Gerbil wrote:

Alex wrote:Not sure as to what you mean by "p-values" and "t-values".

It's a psychology thing: unnecessarily pedantic, and obsessed with self-validation and being immune to the criticisms of other sciences. Everyone knows that the best way of validating research findings is by Peer Review. If it stands up to the scrutiny of your peers, then it's validated.

Interesting GG a peer review on documentation of neurology, I think your focusing on sociology. I mean neurology not psychology...while I use psyc stuff its based in neurology..

lone dragon wrote:the t-test and p-test confirm validity this is why I disagreed with it.
In addition meta analysis's are a good resource.
There is good and bad research out there if there is research out there that contradicts you would be amazed the research that agrees with me. You can always find conflicting data even I can find it, but you will have to make your mind up all I ask is that you research heavily and with out bias, but good luck...

p-value with less than .05 good above bad..
t-test well don't worry about that one..

So you are saying that my sources and links are not credible resources because they don't have any of these "t-values" or "p-values". You have not provided any sources, any links, or anything to even support your claims other then your word. You have no "t-values" or "p-values", so how can you scrutinize others links and web articles if you fail to provide anything that is contradictory. You keep claiming that we should look on web data bases, I linked several. You then claimed they were not satisfactory, I suspect that you said that because they disagreed with you.

You also completely ignored my above statement so I will repost it.

Around 2.5 million people diagnosed with schizophrenia, of that 2.5 million around 500 "got it" from heavy marijuana use. That leaves 2,499,500 people give or take. Is it then not logical to conclude that it is more likely that the 500 heavy smokers got the disease from something other then marijuana use? That instead they became ill with the disease due to some sort of other mental imbalance along with their life experiences.

So you are saying that my sources and links are not credible resources because they don't have any of these "t-values" or "p-values". You have not provided any sources, any links, or anything to even support your claims other then your word. You have no "t-values" or "p-values", so how can you scrutinize others links and web articles if you fail to provide anything that is contradictory.

here ya go..

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/184/2/110
http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/19/2/187
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/190 ... 045_fm.pdf

Here is a start..If you want more as I said PM me...

Alex wrote: Is it then not logical to conclude that it is more likely that the 500 heavy smokers got the disease from something other then marijuana use?

That instead they became ill with the disease due to some sort of other mental imbalance along with their life experiences.

This is one other variable but I don't necessarily agree with they are mentally imbalance before a trigger...but thats one of the questions isnt it...

Around 2.5 million people diagnosed with schizophrenia, of that 2.5 million around 500 "got it" from heavy marijuana use. That leaves 2,499,500 people give or take. Is it then not logical to conclude that it is more likely that the 500 heavy smokers got the disease from something other then marijuana use? That instead they became ill with the disease due to some sort of other mental imbalance along with their life experiences.

Which article?

I agree with everyone lone dragon says

Phlamingoe wrote::-k

I agree with everyone lone dragon says

In a way, its just I dont agree with the legalization of Marijuana, it brings out an element of danger to people and I would be a fool not to say something. There are many more problems with the drug and especially in its abuse or over use, I understand quite a bit about it, I have seen so ,any people ruin there lives from it legal or illegal it is done, I cant stop peoples free choice, but I have a right to say if its brought into the public areas and into the world creates more problems than it could solve.

I do not agree with the legalization of Marijuana..

1 thing that no ones addressed here is the definition of Marijuana...

are you talking about pure unadulterated Marijuana (in which case i do not agree with you and it SHOULD be legalised), or are you talking about skunk and other types of tampered rubbish paraded as Marijuana (in which case i AGREE and that should NOT be legal)??



[spoiler]i have a feeling you will say all forms of Hemp/Marijuana should be illegal...i'm sure you'll correct me if that's wrong[/spoiler]

[KMA]Avenger wrote:1 thing that no ones addressed here is the definition of Marijuana...

are you talking about pure unadulterated Marijuana (in which case i do not agree with you and it SHOULD be legalised), or are you talking about skunk and other types of tampered rubbish paraded as Marijuana (in which case i AGREE and that should NOT be legal)??



[spoiler]i have a feeling you will say all forms of Hemp/Marijuana should be illegal...i'm sure you'll correct me if that's wrong[/spoiler]

I respect your opinion, but I will agree to disagree, if it is smoked or gives you a high then it is not good...your getting off on potential brain damage..I will mot attempt to justify or validate this statement. I could, but it doesn't matter..Its the same for alcohol people are getting off on brain cell damage.

i have a feeling you will say all forms of Hemp/Marijuana should be illegal...i'm sure you'll correct me if that's wrong

While I dont know all about every type of plant and purity also what method you mean, if you have made up your mind there is nothing I can say. Hemp for cloths I have no problem with in a liquid form or medical use is legal in may places, but to use to get off, I hope people realize the dangers.. I am telling the truth, I hope it helps some people, but I properly should say no more..

there is a HUGE difference between skunk and stronger forms of Hemp/Marijuana and unadulterated Hemp/marijuana, and just so we are ALL on the same page with regards to 1 or the other i ask again, define which type of Marijuana we are talking about please

[KMA]Avenger wrote:there is a HUGE difference between skunk and stronger forms of Hemp/Marijuana and unadulterated Hemp/marijuana, and just so we are ALL on the same page with regards to 1 or the other i ask again, define which type of Marijuana we are talking about please

I am talking about any Hemp/marijuana that you get stoned or a chemical reaction in which a person has a trip, hallucination or buzz out of. Any and all its the trip or buzz I am talking about.. Its the trip that does it. Stresses the brain and causes the start of all the problems I know there are degrees and strengths in the drug but pre-longed use like alcohol, smokes or anything has an affect..

...

Yet another brainwashed one. *sigh*

Z E R O wrote:...

Yet another brainwashed one. *sigh*

You just proved my point exactly..

I can and will elabourate.

It's just a touch early for me to get in the right head space.