Your mother really did make you a homosexual

Smiles, sorry to disappoint you, but apparently Pissyboy only understands items presented in bite-sized chunks.

There are several citations which point to a genetic link to homosexuality. You ignore those other citation ...

"point" is a long way from "show", as any statistician or researcher worth anything (not that there appear to be many in this field) will tell you.

... it appears that there is a genetic link to homosexuality. I find it strange that you argue against such a link.

I did not "argue against" there appearing to be "such a link"; I pointed out that none had yet been found, which is totally different.

I find it amazing that someone with no advanced training in math, statistics, research methods, mathematical modeling, genetics, or the research on gays and lesbians in general feels they are qualified to make such grand judgments on the work of others. Damn sir, you are either a very smart and I mean a very smart man or you are delusional.

I find it amazing that you know what advanced training, etc, I have in any field. You are either very smart, which you rather arrogantly infer you are, or you are clairvoyant.

The paper would have been reviewed by other mathematical modelers not people who whose work was citied by the paper тАУ unless they were mathematical modelers.

Read the list of references. They were.

... the analogy of cigarette company studies being published is again just false.

It was not an analogy. I said it was "about as impartial".

you are just wrong again, when you imply that somehow these models are bad models if the rely on previous data as a starting point to model processes.

I did not "imply " anything of the sort. My point was that "the data appears to have been selected to match the conclusions made, as do the formulae used, rather than the other way around."

As I have stated, research shows that people in general are more tolerant of gays and lesbians if they believe that it is a genetic predisposition and not a life style choice.

If by "people in general" you are excluding "the core opposition to homosexuals ... mainstream Christians and Muslims" you may well be right. Why not give some references showing how these two groups have "become more tolerant of gays and lesbians" as a result of this research?

Well I can imply a number of things about you but lets stick to the facts shall we?

Lets.

Well I guess I am gland that you feel my career is sad and pointless.

I did not say that either. What I actually said was that the second of the two problems appeared to make it pointless.

And to return the favor, what are you sir? A shopkeeper? Well good for you! If you find your calling keeping the books and toiling over the register then I salute you! ...If you have advanced training in math, modeling, statistics, genetics, research methods, etcтАж I might give you more credibility. But from what I can tell you are a merchant with no special training.

You can tell very little. I am not, nor have I ever been, "a shopkeeper", "a merchant" or in trade of any description, nor, statistically (!) am I "old" (unless you call nearly two decades off conventional retiring age old). As I said in Anonymity, Posting Guidelines, I give "credibility" to posts based on their content, not what the poster claims to be.

Rather than give Smiles another fit, how about limiting your reply to two points which, for someone with your "advanced training", etc, should be relatively simple and may demonstrate just how "smart" you really are:

Specific references showing how mainstream Christians and Muslims (the identifiable majority of "people in general" opposed to homosexuality) "are more tolerant of gays and lesbians if they believe that it is a genetic predisposition and not a life style choice".

The solution to the "Darwinian paradox" of the "gay gene", which the particular paper you are supporting has left unanswered and which negates its findings.

[Bob]

Oh bite me Bob ...

How very dare you! Lol. Pot's got a chance but I'm not about to bite a Canadian wearing swampers (regardless if your legs are cute.....)!

Just think of a good catfight here on Sawatdee as good practice for your pathetic upcoming Supreme Court brief on Lesbian Free-Our-Clitoris's constitutional rights case next week in DC. Judge Scalia as swing vote!

Ya know, I think it was Scalia's pubic hair on Thomas' coca cola can! God would I pay heavy to prove that. Of course, I'd pay even more if it turned out to be Cheney's!

[Wesley]

[quote=kittyboy]

: "Because you have never suffered unequal treatment, you deduce from your statistical sample of one, that anyone who has suffered such treatment is inadequate in some way."

Brad, a very fair point, and I apologise if I have offended those many who have suffered unfairly through no fault of their own. What I meant is that it some, but by no means all, use it as an excuse.

Pissyboy,

your comprehension of basic English is lacking.The "other study which used family histories from three independent samples" was of "selected" samples, as the researchers doubted the "honesty" of a random or volunteer sample. They were based on recollections of previous generations and relatives by those questioned, not on direct investigation, so were anecdotal, nothing more. It was also the only one of many references to have looked at any family histories at all. Hardly empirical data and, on its own, worthless.

There are obviously two problems, Pissyboy, and I can quite understand why you would not want to accept either of them.

Firstly, the research paper into hereditary genetics you refer to is based on data which is either flawed, insufficient, or both.

The "peer review" is only valid as long as it is independent: it was not. The "peers" carrying out the review of the paper are predominantly the same as those who wrote the very papers and provided the data used as base reference sources and who also "reviewed" each others' papers - not "mathematical modellers", as you "assume"; about as impartial as the studies into the effects of cigarette smoke sponsored by tobacco companies.

Hereditary data, of an inherited gene, needs to be made over a number of generations in a considerable number of families. As these studies have only been started relatively recently the data required to make even an initial assessment will not be available in our lifetimes.
Mathematically the data appears to have been selected to match the conclusions made, as do the formulae used, rather than the other way around. The formulae themselves are relatively simple, convoluted rather than confusing - possibly GCE 'O' level standard, but well below the standard required, for example, by 'A/O' level Additional Mathematics, let alone a PhD.

The paper's layout and method is similar to an intelligence analyst being given a conclusion and then collating and interpreting information to support it.

Secondly, even if the "Darwinian paradox" which the paper ignores was resolved and clear, irrefutable evidence for the "gay gene" was found tomorrow it would only make a marginal difference to the "stigma" of being homosexual or to the struggle "for equality". The core opposition to homosexuals comes from mainstream Christians and Muslims, whose beliefs are based exclusively on the written teachings of the Messiah and his prophets which are only open to minimal interpretation, if any, are paramount, and supersede any scientific hypotheses no matter how much evidence there may be to support them.

Their acceptance of homosexuality due to any evidence of the "gay gene", therefore, appears highly unlikely. Far more likely, if they were to accept proof of the "gay gene", is that it would be considered as an identifiable inherited defect which could and should be treated by gene therapy in the same way as other inherited diseases - hardly what you are hoping for.

If mathematical models and scientific evidence alone were sufficient then Richard Dawkins' Big Bang Theory and The God Delusion would have replaced the Bible and the Koran as the two most influential books in the world, and up to half the population of the US (depending on which statistics you believe) would not believe in creationism.

I doubt if you would agree, as the second problem not only invalidates your suggestion that your research is "an important line of research" making the chances of your achieving something constructive unlikely, at best, but it makes your job which you clearly enjoy ("I am immersed in my own research. I love what I do") appear rather pointless. Now that is sad.

Smiles,

... yer a goddam idiot, so shut the fuck up ...and take Homintern and Bob, with you!

I am so disapointed - well only slightly, you have given me your point by point rebutal, but it was incoherent, not well thought out and rambling. I suggest more editing before sending.



Sorry to say you again are wrong and even sadder is that you mislead yourself and others through mischaracterizing the citations. There are several citations which point to a genetic link to homosexuality. You ignore those other citation but the idea is convergent validity. If you have a number of studies pointing in the same direction you can say they are converging and together they offer evidence stronger than a single study. In total it appears that there is a genetic link to homosexuality. I find it strange that you argue against such a link. My reading of the data is that it is not flawed but your assessment of it is flawed. I find it amazing that someone with no advanced training in math, statistics, research methods, mathematical modeling, genetics, or the research on gays and lesbians in general feels they are qualified to make such grand judgments on the work of others. Damn sir, you are either a very smart and I mean a very smart man or you are delusional.

The peer review process does not work the way you describe. Sorry you are wrong again. The paper would have been reviewed by other mathematical modelers not people who whose work was citied by the paper тАУ unless they were mathematical modelers. PS тАУ the review process is double blind. So the analogy of cigarette company studies being published is again just false. Where do you get these silly ideas?

Mathematical modeling is a very valid tool. In this case it was used to see what kind of genetic scenario could explain why and or how a gay gene might work. This kind of work is done all the time. I had a friend who has a PhD in math and was doing mathematical modeling on the spread of HIV. She relied on data showing infection trends and did some modeling for a vaccine company. So sorry, you are just wrong again, when you imply that somehow these models are bad models if the rely on previous data as a starting point to model processes.


I guess it is a matter of opinion on what happens when and if a genetic link to homosexuality is found. As I have stated, research shows that people in general are more tolerant of gays and lesbians if they believe that it is a genetic predisposition and not a life style choice.



And finally, you are again wrong. I never stated that my research was important. Go back and look real hard now. Ok now that you have looked you can confirm that I said the paper that was posted was an important line of research.
Ah... I suspect that you will say I implied that my work was important. Well I can imply a number of things about you but lets stick to the facts shall we?


Well I guess I am gland that you feel my career is sad and pointless. It gives me strong validation to know that you find it to be so. Damn I thought I was on the wrong path. And to return the favor, what are you sir? A shopkeeper? Well good for you! If you find your calling keeping the books and toiling over the register then I salute you! And I hope that validates your decision.



I think one of your problems with trying to discuss these things is that you take things out of context, make grand conclusions based on very little knowledge. Again, If you have advanced training in math, modeling, statistics, genetics, research methods, etcтАж I might give you more credibility. But from what I can tell you are a merchant with no special training.


"Smiles, ... yer a goddam idiot, so shut the fuck up ...and take Homintern and Bob, with you!" Also, I am shocked and saddened that you need to resort to such language. Smiles, Homitern, and Bob. I don't think you are idiots. I think Homitern refters to himself as an old cunt... or is that someone else referring to Homitern? Well it gets all confusing. Anyway, saddened and shocked I am.

PS тАУ To all the business people out there, donтАЩt take my words to GF too seriously, I am just hoping to provoke another epileptic fit from the old sweatheart. And I mean sweatheart not sweetheart.[/quote:8a6aiigo]


God that was long, When I see them that long I tend to scim the post. Hommi has a direct to the [point way of getting to you, mind not all of us are so articulate. But Obviously it was meant for people with a doctorate in some kind. I have a BS in BS if that will help.

Wes

God that was long, When I see them that long I tend to scim the post.

Agreed - so why repeat it all??? And the BF has enough BS already!

[kittyboy]

Oh GF - You silly silly fellow. You are just so wrong again. That is not how the peer review process and the citation process work. You really should stick to making very detailed posting about things which you have knowledge.


Oh you silly silly man.

That is not how the peer review process and the citation process work.

I think you mean "how the peer review process and the citation process should work".

And your reply to

"Specific references showing how mainstream Christians and Muslims (the identifiable majority of "people in general" opposed to homosexuality) "are more tolerant of gays and lesbians if they believe that it is a genetic predisposition and not a life style choice".

The solution to the "Darwinian paradox" of the "gay gene", which the particular paper you are supporting has left unanswered and which negates its findings"

which should be no problem for someone who has "advanced training in math, modeling, statistics, genetics, research methods, etc" and your "research qualifications", and you claim to already know the answer to the first point?


Cottman,

Yours is a very valid point. I contacted a cousin of mine who is far younger, more attractive and smarter than me (not difficult), who told me that she likened the current popularity of mathematical modelling to alchemy (turning base metal into gold, for the non-English speakers) and that with the aid of a computer and someone else's research you could produce a paper proving virtually anything with almost no effort at all. She was a research scientist and the director of a national Brain Donor Programme studying the connection between Alzheimer's and genetics and, although she produced research that indicated a link, she also produced two "spoof" papers from the same data which genuinely proved that there was a link not only with religion (quite possible, apparently, due to diet and mental exercise required by some religions) but also with star signs and height!

I asked her if she had any spare samples, as some here seem in need, but unfortunately she was unable to help.

[kittyboy]

Oh GF -

You are still a silly silly man and again wrong.

You really should stick to your shopkeeping.

Is that a "I can't reply because even though I claim to be smart and know everything about this subject and its what I get paid to do I actually know sweet FA so I will just call you names instead" then?

Piss and wind, Pissyboy, piss and wind - how appropriate.


أحْمَق خدا حاف

[kittyboy]

No - It is a fools game to get into a posting battle with someone who seems to have an opinion on everything but knows nothing.

You are still wrong - as you have admitted you know nothing of the process you describe.

You are a silly silly man.


Now watch the pavlovian response.... the dog salivates... GF must post a multi-tiered rebuttal.

[Aunty]

Thanks Cottman for your post. I was going to try and find some similar papers myself, but then decided I couldn't be bothered wasting my time for the very reasons demonstrated so clearly subsequent to your post. Evidently the take home message of the papers you have drawn our attention to has gone straight over the head of one of the strident foot stomping contributors to this thread!

As a working scientist who has published original research articles in international peer reviewed scientific journals; as a working scientist who has peer reviewed the manuscripts of other medical scientists; as a working scientist who has successfully written and been awarded competitive research grants by my peers (after my research proposals have been peer reviewed and judged for their merit); and as a working scientist etc etc etc., I can tell you and the other readers of this thread quite unequivocally that there is, out of Gone Fishing and Kittyboy, only one who actually does know something of what they are talking about when it comes to the research merits of the original paper under discussion, and the peer review process itself. And it ain't pussy!

I'm not going to argue with you pussyboy. (What would be the point!?) You don't know what you are talking about, and I am in the position to know that and to know why. You strike me as a strident, silly, uptight little queen stomping her immature foot while holding her breath. I can't be bothered with you, I have no reason to. Go away.