That is a very disturbing article.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

A search for the term "peer review" returned nil from the article.
The word "peers" only appeared once.

When I searched an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal I got 0 hits for "peer-reviewed", but when I searched for "peers" in Wikipedia's article on BitTorrent I got loads of hits.

Why would the article be peer reviewed? Is it claiming to be an academic publication?

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Those are loaded questions.
Two things are happening here:
(1) You imply that (a) I said the article should be peer reviewed; and
(2) You ask why anyone would do such a thing as (a).

I did no such thing.

This is the second time in recent weeks
you (i) jumped to wrong conclusion and (ii) put words into my mouth.

Since two can play this game, let's see:
Were you naturally born with this gift,
or did it take years of practice to perfect
this confrontational tone of voice as soon as you open your mouth ?

In that case please explain why you even bothered to say



if you had no intention of implying that it should be. Were you just trolling, looking for an argument?

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Wow, talk about a dysfunctional organization. The Gorilla Foundation's questionable research on human/ape communication is sort of old news, but I wasn't aware of how far down the pseudoscience rabbit-hole they had traveled.

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

Hi DrStraw, I apologize. I over-reacted. Please see also Understanding .

I did not read that article in great detail,
but I got the sense that none or little of their research
was peer reviewed, and that may have been part of the problem.

It was not a complaint. I was not looking for an argument, nor was I trolling.
I was not saying the article should've been peer reviewed, not at all.
I was simply stating a fact -- the term "peer reviewed" was not mentioned in the article.

This goes to show the risks and dangers of posting on a public forum. The assumptions.
If I read something I don't quite understand, I ask -- I'm sure sometimes I forget to do that, as well.
I try not to jump to conclusions, but I'm sure I fail at that, too.

[making a point]
A search for "helpful" returned nil from your posts.
As a matter of fact, it was not even mentioned once!

It is not a complaint. I am not looking for an argument, nor am I trolling.
I am not saying the posts should've been helpful, not at all.
I am simply stating a fact -- the term "helpful" was not mentioned in the posts at all.
[/making a point]

Now, why would I write something like that?

Other than this, I fully agree with you, Ed.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!