wnjj wrote:
bmanning wrote:
Not sure why you took my input personally; if you felt I was referring to your particular post, apologies, I wasn't.
As Hannibal stated, he wasn't actually disagreeing with you.
I do value the theoretical...
...I just value real-world experience, especially that which is being supplied by a respected forum member, equally if not moreso.
I agree with your last sentence above ^.
I guess I thought you were referring to my post because you quoted everything, including mine. It looked like a compare/contrast between ignorable "theory" responses and good experience responses. I've had people jump my case because "I couldn't possibly know without first hand experience" (which is flawed thinking IMHO). I can tell you with high certainty that it's not snowing in New York by looking up the temperature even though I'm miles from actually being there.
It's all good. :)
p.s. I wrote the post above this one before I saw your reply.
You know what's beautiful? When real-world experience and theory agree!
Not knocking theory whatsoever, I just like evidence with theory. I work in clinical research and when sponsors (Merck, GSK, Pfizer, etc.) develop drugs they certainly theorize that they'll be safe and effective...BUT...the FDA says "You want to market that drug? OK, PROVE it's safe and effective and we'll talk." That's when the little people like myself conduct clinical trials to obtain the necessary data for the FDA to say "we're on board" or "sorry, not happening guys."
I can see how it may have seemed I was referencing your post in particular to make my point; sorry about that.
