What% of this foid is plastic?

[Deleted member 27511]

I got a slightly recessed chin but I always shave.

Beardmaxx or don’t if ur recession isn’t noticeable

 

[Deleted member 21467]

I got a slightly recessed chin but I always shave.

im trying to grow my beard I hate my fat cheeks

 

[Gengar]

Beardmaxx or don’t if ur recession isn’t noticeable

I’m not sure if it’s not noticeable. I would say it’s just a few mms of recession. Nothing that would make you go “lol weak chin.” But more like “regular chin.”

 

[Gengar]

im trying to grow my beard I hate my fat cheeks

I got top-tier beard genetics, leaving me to look like a 9/11 plane-hijacking terrorist.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

I got top-tier beard genetics, leaving me to look like a 9/11 plane-hijacking terrorist.

Most Muslim men seem to be able to grow great beards

 

[Reckless Turtle]

only on the .org with there be paragraphs on dick size study accuracy

Correct hence the existence of retards like @

@Reckless Turtle and @

@GilfHunter

The only retard here is OP who is willing to write paragraphs with a plethora of argumentative fallacies (including ad hominems from his first response to me) because he isn't willing to accept that he linked a non-peer-reviewed dataset on penis lengths.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

a non-peer-reviewed dataset on penis lengths.

You don’t peer review datasets you peer review publications. Stop using words you don’t understand. I already admitted that we ourselves can’t verify the methodology because the link is broken.

But We don’t know if the source is peer reviewed or not because we can’t even access the source to begin with. Why can’t you understand that.

How can we know if a source is peer reviewed if we can’t access the source? That doesn’t even make sense.

 

[Gengar]

Most Muslim men seem to be able to grow great beards

It really depends. I knew salafists with a pathetic excuse for a “beard.” When I say I shave because my hairs are too thick they are the ones who say “who cares about that; aren’t you a real man?” To which I respond “yeah if I had pubes as facial hair I’d say the same thing.”

 

[Deleted member 27511]

including ad hominems from his first response to me)

You’ve used numerous ad hominems, even being the first one to do it by calling me a schizo.

“Coping” was a description of an action you were taking not an attack on you.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

The only retard here is OP

If you have a looksmax.org account you’re automatically retarded get off your high horse

 

[Reckless Turtle]

You don’t peer review datasets you peer review publications. Stop using words you don’t understand. I already admitted that we ourselves can’t verify the methodology because the link is broken.

Stop arguing when you cannot understand the basic concept that if a dataset isn't included as a reference then it cannot have been peer-reviewed as an independent research publication, as per the definition of peer review.

But We don’t know if the source is peer reviewed or not because we can’t even access the source to begin with. Why can’t you understand that.

How can we know if a source is peer reviewed if we can’t access the source? That doesn’t even make sense.

Because, as per the requirements of peer review, the peer-reviewed dataset must be included in the references section in order for the subsequent article to pass the peer-review process. You're too dense to realize that the peer-review process is hierarchical.

“Coping” was a description of an action you were taking not an attack on you.

Which is an attack on my character in response to me simply stating a fact, dumbass.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

f a dataset isn't included as a reference then it cannot have been peer-reviewed as an independent

This sentence doesn’t even make sense once again you don’t peer review a data set you peer review a publication.

it cannot have been peer-reviewed as an independent research publication, as per the definition of peer review.

All that means is that it couldn’t have been peer reviews by elsevier since they wouldn’t have had access to the data. We don’t know if the study was published in a journal other than elsevier.

You keep trying to make up reasons for things you simply can’t know. And this doesn’t even make sense as the link wouldn’t have been broken at the time so the publishers at elsevier would have been able to verify the methodology of the study that the data is based on at the time.

peer-reviewed data set must be included in the references section in order

All data peer reviewed or
not is required to go in the reference section. So let’s just say the d study the data was based on wasnt peer reviewed is suppose to go in the reference section. The reason why it’s not in the reference section is due to a mistake not because it wasn’t peer reviewed idiot

Which is an attack on my character in response to me simply stating a fact, dumbass.

Coping is a human behavior and says nothing about the character of the purpose, it’s like saying some is crying is an attack on a person. It’s not it’s just a description of an action someone is taking. Stop being so insecure, everyone copes it’s a necessity to cope.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

peer-reviewed data set must be included in the references section

It’s a requirement for all sources to be put in the references section not just peer reviewed ones. The fact the source wasn’t in the reference section was due to an error by elsevier. It says nothing about whether the source itself was peer reviewed by another journal

 

[Reckless Turtle]

This sentence doesn’t even make sense once again you don’t peer review a data set you peer review a publication.

The dataset is peer-reviewed for the publication of research that collected the data, idiot.

The reason why it’s not in the reference section is due to a mistake not because it wasn’t peer reviewed idiot

If that's the case (which is less likely), the article you linked mistakenly passed the peer review and was incorrectly published, idiot.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

The dataset is peer-reviewed for the publication of research that collected the data, idiot.

Yes the publication is peer reviewed, the term "peer reviewed data set" doesn't make sense you cant peer review a data set alone you peer review a publication

If that's the case (which is less likely), the article you linked mistakenly passed the peer review and was incorrectly published, idiot.

You're retarded so ill break it down step by step. So Lynn used data from an NYC study which wasn't mentioned in the references

How can we explain this anomaly. Lets just say you're right, the NYC study wasn't peer reviewed. In that case Elsevier still should have complained to Lynn that the source isn't mentioned in the references section, since all sources peer reviewed or not are required to be in references.

But the article was still published, so that means Elsevier made a mistake in publishing the article

Now lets take my view, lets say we don't know if the NYC study was peer reviewed or not. But regardless its still a requirement for the source to be put in the reference section. But it wasn't, yet it still was published. That would mean Elsevier made a mistake.

So even according to both our views on whether the NYC study was peer reviewed or not were still led to the same conclusion, that being Elsevier made a mistake. Its not "less likely" its true no matter what view we take on whether the NYC study was peer reviewed. Thus the NYC study not being mentioned in the references doesn't even obliquely imply that the study wasn't peer reviewed instead it necessitates the idea that Elsevier made an error.

This is simple logic, you were jus too stupid to use your brain

mistakenly passed the peer review

Congratulation's on catching up, I've already stated that all sources are required to be in the reference section. But the fact that it past showed the article has not irredeemable qualities.

 

[Artemis]

Well, her ass is at least BBL'ed, so i do not expect silicone in there. Since the ass her biggest part, i guess at most 50% silicone

 

[Reckless Turtle]

That would mean Elsevier made a mistake.

AKA the article you linked cannot be considered properly peer-reviewed.

Its not "less likely" its true no matter what view we take on whether the NYC study was peer reviewed.

It's more likely that the NY dataset (from a "survey," not a "study,' as per the author's own words) was not peer-reviewed and Elsevier simply published a shitty article.

This is simple logic, you were jus too stupid to use your brain

Ironic.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

AKA the article you linked cannot be considered properly peer-reviewed.

in the fullest sense yes, but the fact that it passed shows there is no irredeemable problem with the article at least at the time of publication, anything else is semantics.

from a "survey," not a "study,' as per the author's own words)

The terms survey and study aren't exclusive, a scientific study can consist of a survey it happens all the time

was not peer-reviewed

You never gave any justification for why it was more likely, we simply cant know if It is peer reviewed or not since we dont have access to the study. Notice how you went from "The source isnt peer reviewed" to "it probably wasnt peer reviewed". I dont really care about you believing it probably wasnt peer reviewed it doesnt change the fact we have know real way of knowing if the study was pee reviewed since we cant access it.

You're allowed to suspect it wasn't peer reviewed by all means go ahead but when you place a certainty about a study you've never even read it comes off to me as dishonest.

Ironic.

I had to walk you through basic logic step by step, by making you aware that regardless of what position is taking it still entails my statement being correct(Elsevier made an error).

 

[Reckless Turtle]

but the fact that it passed shows there is no irredeemable problem with the article at least at the time of publication, anything else is semantics.

No, the fact is that the NY dataset was not peer-reviewed if the Elsevier article was, or else it would be in the references section. That is not semantics.

The terms survey and study aren't exclusive, a scientific study can consist of a survey it happens all the time

And then the peer-reviewed study (containing survey data) is cited in the references section as part of the peer-review process.

You never gave any justification for why it was more likely

It's more likely due to the fact that the Elsevier article was published in the first place (even if the article is shitty due to not using data from a peer-reviewed study).

we have know real way of knowing if the study was pee reviewed since we cant access it.

If you can't access it through the references section then it wasn't peer-reviewed, as per the definition of peer review.

I had to walk you through basic logic step by step, by making you aware that regardless of what position is taking it still entails my statement being correct(Elsevier made an error).

You used basic logic to reach the conclusion that you posted a shitty article with shitty data?

 

[Deleted member 27511]

No, the fact is that the NY dataset was not peer-reviewed if the Elsevier article was, or else it would be in the references section. That is not semantics.

Whether a source is peer reviewed or not had nothing to do with whether its in the references because all sources go into the reference section. I've already explained this to you, even if we say your right and the NYC source wasn't peer reviewed it would still go in the references section because that's where all sources go into. Thus Elsevier made a mistake it says literally nothing about whether the NYC study was peer reviewed

And then the peer-reviewed study (containing survey data) is cited in the references section as part of the peer-review process.

That's what's suppose to happen, the only thing Ill nitpick is the fact that peer reviewed or not the source goes in the references. But there's one thing you're forgetting, people make mistakes. The scientists at Elsevier are human.

If you can't access it through the references section then it wasn't peer-reviewed, as per the definition of peer review.

No it means Elsevier made a mistake, it tells us nothing about whether the study was peer reviewed or not.

You used basic logic to reach the conclusion that you posted a shitty article with shitty data?

The article wasn't shit, otherwise some of the smartest scientists at the best journal in the world wouldn't have published it. Do you think you understand science more than people who are professionally trained in the subject and were considered knowledgeable enough to be a reviewer so the best journal in the world.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

or else it would be in the references section

Weve already established that even if the study wasnt peer reviewed it should've still went in the references. You keep parroting this, because you cant come up with a response. We have no way of knowing whether the study was peer reviewed without seeing the journal that published it.

 

[flippasav]

Would bang I am high T

 

[flippasav]

Typical fresh and fit only fans bimbo

 

[flippasav]

Typical fresh and fit only fans bimbo

 

[bishōnenmaxxer]

these niggas are still talking about the validity of dick studies

jfl