In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Biiio, states:
" More important, it is bad practice to cite an article you haven't
read as evidence it says what it does not say."
H. Kuska comment: it is interesting how you can come up with "rules" of
"practice", I have tried to point out to you (with documentation) what the
procedures are for writing abstracts and that the editor and reviewers have
decided whether what is in the abstract accurately reflects what is in the
paper.


Yeah. Here's a "rule." If you want to pretend you know what
an article says, read it. Don't fake it.



AND
" Moreover, it is important to read the article if you are going
to be *using* that article in any kind of scientific discussion."
H. Kuska comment: again one of your "rules" (see below for applicable
comment).
AND
" "As a scientist" I consider it lazy and profoundly poor practice to
cite articles I have not bothered to read."
H. Kuska comment: first, you have not given any indication that you are a
scientist, second, I have been communicating on the internet in scientific
discussions since the internet was first available for scientific
discussions (that was the original purpose of the internet). Most
scientific libraries are not wealthy enough to purchase each and every
journal, plus there are articles in many different languages. Apparently,
the scientists that I have been communicating with feel very confident in
discussing a paper based on its abstract. If you are a scientist and refuse
to partake in such discussions that is your decision.


Blah blah blah. Yeah, I have been communicating on the
internet in scientific discussions since the internet was
first available for scientific discussions, too. And I don't
care if you can or cannot read a foreign language. If you
don't bother to read an article, don't pretend to know what
it says.

And the bottom line is that it's even *sillier* to ignore
what is *in* the article because it isn't in the abstract.

The fact is that the authors of these articles do *not*
make the claim that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used
as directed -- in the abstract *or* in the article. The
difference is that in the article they go into details as
to why the cannot make that claim. Since you can't bring
yourself to read the articles, you miss that little bit.

AND
" This is particularly true in a scientific discussion where one
is citing articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless."
H. Kuska comment: if the editor and reviewers did not consider the paper
"meaningless" I find your conclusion that it is meaningless, well, shall I
say "interesting".


Read the context, buddy. Go back and see where "meaningless" was used
and how it was used in the sentence I was replying to. It referred to
the *reader* finding the article meaningless because he or she was not
competent to understand the article. It did not refer to anything
about the authors. Surely you are not that silly; why are you trying
to willfully misstate my position?

Your attempt to make my reply say something that I clearly did not mean
doesn't say much for your skill at divining information from scientific
articles without reading them.




" But, OK. I'll be happy to agree that you all are citing articles
in areas of which you are profoundly ignorant, you don't know what
the articles actually mean, and that you are not competent to
understand the articles had you actually bothered to read them."
H. Kuska comment: wow! Is this the writing of someone who was trained to be
a professional scientist?????? Maybe you can set up logic diagrams to show
us how you reached such conclusions.
AND
" If that's the claim you want to make, run with it. Otherwise,
read the articles and don't pretend they say what they don't
say."
H. Kuska comment: The complete abstract was given. The editor and reviewers
decided it represented the paper.


Yawn. Here's a clue. There's a reason journals contain
whole articles and not just abstracts. It's because important
stuff is in the *articles.* The idea that one can read a
two paragraph abstract and get everything that's in a 20-page
article is just silly.


billo