Every single article (most of them from prominent leaders in anthro, their pieces classics and vital to the subject) that I have read has not failed to be based on opinion
"the research I put forth here raises questions that clearly will spur controversy, further research and opened eyes"
How can anyone find that legitimate?
Every time they bring up a good/interesting/relevent fact they manage to swamp it in a bog of opinionated bullshit that gets all the attention
GOOD "the doctors gave all the blame of my cancer to genetics: placing the blame on no one, no one controls genetics. They failed to even question whether the environment played a role...(a few statistics showing interesting relation between cancer and environment)"
BAD "I am going to follow that up with 20 pages of how painful my cancer was and how evil and corporate and capitilist the medical system has become and never touch on my original point again."
Comments 3
Reply
"the research I put forth here raises questions that clearly will spur controversy, further research and opened eyes"
How can anyone find that legitimate?
Every time they bring up a good/interesting/relevent fact they manage to swamp it in a bog of opinionated bullshit that gets all the attention
GOOD "the doctors gave all the blame of my cancer to genetics: placing the blame on no one, no one controls genetics. They failed to even question whether the environment played a role...(a few statistics showing interesting relation between cancer and environment)"
BAD "I am going to follow that up with 20 pages of how painful my cancer was and how evil and corporate and capitilist the medical system has become and never touch on my original point again."
How does this shit get published?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment