Comments on: Woodhouse versus Graybill

By: breast enhancement

breast enhancement — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:27:26 +0000

Nice site I found … Plan on coming back later.

By: TCO

TCO — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 11:47:02 +0000

I just had a post rejected. (I haven’t checked, but likely this will erase some of my earlier ones.) Had this experience a week ago and never got the other ones out of purgatory.

By: TCO

TCO — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 11:45:50 +0000

1. Maybe it’s worse for me, when on a laptop (small screen).
2. Great. You could publish this post as a little letter. Would get the field thinking. You or someone in the field could do follow ons. Put it in a specialty journal. Not nature or science, not nescessarily wherever these guys published.
3. I think you need to make caveats in your conclusion/discussion that you are presenting things to look at, worry about. Rather than a hard-core stake through the heart. Because it isn’t that yet, until you do do the longer paper. But that’s fine.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 05:07:40 +0000

It’s not the webpage, it’s just that I made the figures a little too big. They were not so big that the effect was lost, so I didn’t bother going back and making the figures a little smaller.

No, I’m not thinking in terms of omnibus papers. I’m more of a memo type of writer, which suits little papers.

By: TCO

TCO — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 02:31:29 +0000

1. Something is happening with the webpage so that the figures and post text box are interfered with by the side panel.

2. Ok. This is one more publication that needs to be done (comparison of nearby sites by different samplers). But you won’t publish. Or you will wait for an omnibus paper instead of doing a buinch of LPUs.