Reply to Trapped/Re-aging Families, How are you having the conversation?

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "Trapped/Re-aging Families, How are you having the conversation?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Hahahaha maybe you should read the papers so its not so easy to make you look stupid.

"So, while the US also uses the calendar year to determine age groups for youth players, the inevitably smaller pool of children willing/able to pay for youth soccer may cause the more balanced distribution we have witnessed above"[/quote]

the above sentence is why the paper needed to be peer reviewed, because it suggests the author was unaware of the age registration change.[/quote]
Im surprised you didnt slip rae into that excuse somehow.[/quote]

It's a fascinating set of data but more needs to be done to understand why the numbers are they way they are. The author provides a theory BUT at best he doesn't address the SY/BY switch. That's a potential flaw in his reasoning and he should have at least discussed it, especially if aware, like he did with other possible reasons for the numbers. [/quote]In his defense, he is a data scientist, his goal is to use a few charts to show lines going up and down to show what is happening. He isn't pupporting to understand why something is happening, he is merely speculating which he freely admits. Causation isn't in his occupation.[/quote]

More than fair. We're lucky he looked at it and it showed some interesting trends that confirmed a lot of other studies but raised new questions. and in a way, we're crowdsourcing some review, although I'm not sure I could say I'm a peer.[/quote]I'm sure the dude who find incredibly fascinating that a group of randos is parsing his chart like it is the map to a treasure chest.[/quote]

Most scientists appreciate questions and a shared desire to seek knowledge regardless of result. You create a hypothesis and test it and then see if others can repeat it. That's the peer review process and science in general.[/quote]I agree, I'm sure he would enjoy talking about it. He only had a few other unrelated data type papers so he is into the subject expert stuff except of course data presentation.[/quote]
So this is your new angle? Pathetic.

Don't like the results attack the author

I know for a fact that he has 2 more published articles than you do. Such a loser. [/quote]So much here in such a short response. Yes, academics like talking about their work, it's a main reason why they did the work, so they can talk about it and carve it out as their space. 2nd, you don't seem to know what a published article is. And finally, you don't know me so making any assumptions about my CV or h-index would be ridiculous.[/quote]
I'm 99% sure that you're a pompous know it all. Leaning back on a degree for validation. would go hand in hand. [/quote]Degrees aren't for leaning on, like a stool while working at the mall, there for waving like a flag at a victory day parade, baby![/quote]
You got the stool part right.[/quote]Sorry, of course I didn't know you work at a mall. My bad.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics