Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

angryboy2k wrote:
No, I couldn't. People believe things with no evidence every day of the week. I think people are just being contrarian for the sake of it.

Skepticism as has been displayed in this thread won't be satisfied by any level of evidence - especially evidence that very few of us could understand anyway. If he posted some pictures of southern blots and streaks up a screen, would you understand them? If he posted pictures of bacteria to back his claim up would you believe them? You could just as easily say that he doctored some pictures off the internet.

Since he hasn't, we would never know.

If it comes down to not believing him, why would you believe his evidence? Couldn't you easily claim he was getting samples from his lab and just randomly making things up?

Evidence does not prove that a claim is 100% true, since that is impossible. However, it will support the claim, making it more likely to be true. Seriously, if you would read the early parts of this thread most posters were supporting the OP and would like to know his findings, so I don't see why any grounds to your claim that everyone will just disbelieve him out of principle even if he presents solid evidence.

And such is the nature of evidence. Of course you can question its credibility. Being afraid of being questioned about the credibility of your evidence questions the credibility of your evidence more. Skepticism is necessary to separate bogus claims from the truth. Consider for example, a reversed role that everyone would just assume that what everyone's saying is true. If that's the case then I am rich, I look like a super model, I have powers of a Super Saiyan and I also breathe in water.

No one should be afraid of skepticism if you're saying the truth and you have solid evidence to back it up.

All the skeptics - if they were really questioning in the name of science - would go and run their own lab tests with which to refute the obviously insane claims that the OP has made.

No. the OP made a claim. The burden of proof is his to prove it. If it is the truth it wouldn't matter if we believe him or not: truth does not change even if you disbelieve in it. And people with sense in them would recognize it and would at the very least consider if what the OP is saying is, in fact, true.

This thread had all the hallmarks of becoming really fun and interesting.

Too bad...

angryboy2k wrote:Why do you keep clinging to the "unscientific" methodology involved? I don't remember the OP claiming he was doing a statistically relevant sampling. Nor is it necessary to have a statistically relevant sampling to prove something as simple as "One or more pots of Devlan Mud have fecal bacteria in them before they've been used".

Oh, another guy with a tiny number of posts to his name, rushing to the defense of a guy who tells people to "piss off" because they want information to be shared. Curious, that.

I am not 'clinging' to the word unscientific. I mentioned it there, because someone was afraid of a lawsuit, which is silly, as I earlier explained. Running a non-significant mini-test and reporting on it will not result in a lawsuit, just as large corporations can't sue the tens of thousands of high schoolers and college age kids who run mini-tests on products for bacteria in science class. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, if it was statistically significant, if the evidence was strong (due to many many samples tested) that would be a complete defense against defamation as well. They can't claim you are unfairly sullying their name, when all you are doing is saying the truth, right? For multiple reasons, the "I don't want to get sued" excuse is poor, wrong and lame.

So besides a bizarre need to 'take sides' and stir up trouble, I am curious why my earlier post discussing defamation caused you to respond in this way.

Joe Mama wrote:Oh, another guy with a tiny number of posts to his name, rushing to the defense of a guy who tells people to "piss off" because they want information to be shared. Curious, that.

Post count means nothing. The fact that you brought this into play suggests that you think that because you have posted more on a website that you are better than the people who don't have 400 posts. It doesn't.

So please, instead of outright insulting the person for being new, try and come up with a better insult than, "Shut up, Nooblet. You have a small post cout, so your opinion matters less!"

Anyway, welcome to Dakka, AB2k. Sorry if this guy turned you off from Dakka. We're not all bad people.

Joe Mama wrote:

angryboy2k wrote:Why do you keep clinging to the "unscientific" methodology involved? I don't remember the OP claiming he was doing a statistically relevant sampling. Nor is it necessary to have a statistically relevant sampling to prove something as simple as "One or more pots of Devlan Mud have fecal bacteria in them before they've been used".

Oh, another guy with a tiny number of posts to his name, rushing to the defense of a guy who tells people to "piss off" because they want information to be shared. Curious, that.

Like the number of posts I've made proves anything. I post on Warseer under the handle spaint2k and I've over 1600 posts there if it matters a damn. Also you can check my join date and my posting history (which should indicate quite clearly my location).

He's probably told people to piss off because he's sick of being doubted by people who appear to be arguing with him for the sake of it. All the doubters, all the skeptics - I don't know why they read or reply to anything anyone posts. Why believe them?

And I'll reply to your bizarre PM via PM. I hope the content doesn't mean you've blocked me from responding.

angryboy2k wrote:He's probably told people to piss off because he's sick of being doubted by people who appear to be arguing with him for the sake of it. All the doubters, all the skeptics - I don't know why they read or reply to anything anyone posts. Why believe them?

What is this, pop-psychology time? Let's go with what was actual said, eh? He claimed to be afraid of a lawsuit. Which is of course a ludicrous claim. Outright ridiculous claim.
Then we had the message exclaiming tiredness, and the whole woe is me, sour grapes routine. It is there for all to see. Again, completely baffled why you are discussing this - my response to you was about defamation, but you IGNORED that, and decided to harp on one phrase in the intro sentence. WHY? You are not discussing this in good faith at all and I will no longer discuss this with you in this thread.

I think what he's implying is that the OP uses more than one account to defend himself. I think.

Regardless, no proof no truth.

Chowderhead wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:Oh, another guy with a tiny number of posts to his name, rushing to the defense of a guy who tells people to "piss off" because they want information to be shared. Curious, that.

Post count means nothing. The fact that you brought this into play suggests that you think that because you have posted more on a website that you are better than the people who don't have 400 posts. It doesn't.

LOL. Try again. The rabid defenders of Arch making outright personal attacks or insinuating them, both have low post counts. That's my completely obvious point. I just found it odd that when the OP went silent, two people with less than 10 posts each stepped up their attacks. Whether it is coincidentally or not I cannot say. But it stuck out to me, so I noted it as odd. That's all.

Also, if you must know, I think the people with the least posts are the best, because they are probably spending more time playing 40k...






Automatically Appended Next Post:

heartserenade wrote:Regardless, no proof no truth.

Indeed! Just found it bizarre, that's all.

Joe Mama wrote:

angryboy2k wrote:He's probably told people to piss off because he's sick of being doubted by people who appear to be arguing with him for the sake of it. All the doubters, all the skeptics - I don't know why they read or reply to anything anyone posts. Why believe them?

What is this, pop-psychology time? Let's go with what was actual said, eh? He claimed to be afraid of a lawsuit. Which is of course a ludicrous claim. Outright ridiculous claim.
Then we had the message exclaiming tiredness, and the whole woe is me, sour grapes routine. It is there for all to see. Again, completely baffled why you are discussing this - my response to you was about defamation, but you IGNORED that, and decided to harp on one phrase in the intro sentence. WHY?

That's at least the second time in this thread that you've gone the "pop-psychology" route.

I ignored your response regarding defamation because my point was - and still is - that you keep clinging to the lack of scientific/statistical value in the OP's tests, when he never claimed any to begin with. In case you've forgotten, you've mentioned statistical significance at least three times.

Here:

Joe Mama wrote:
Also, the method of sampling is important. Studies can contain flaws which lead to biased results. A couple of brief paragraphs on the method wouldn't be out of line, seeing as how easy it is for a person to introduce bacteria accidentally during a test. I am not super concerned with that here, but it should ALWAYS be a concern and always be mentioned.

And finally, and almost equally as important as dose/concentration, is the significance of the results. If my grand pappy smokes a pack a day and lives to 110, that's great for him, but it doesn't mean smoking is harmless in general. The sample size, of one, was too small to make generalizations. If 3 out of the 6 samples are contaminated in anyway, we need to be aware that this does not mean that 50% of all Delvan Mud jars are contaminated. It's too small a sample to say. Not to say the information isn't useful, but we need to be aware of its limitations. And like someone said way upthread, we shouldn't be against knowledge.

Here:

Joe Mama wrote:

I'm testing six pots total. One, the original pot, and the five more that were sent off yesterday.

That's better than Mythbusters, who never do anything statistically significant on their show. The blow things up though so I'll give them a pass. But 6 is not exactly a gold star A+ study either. Since this is just hobbyists being curious, that's not a bad thing that the sample size is so low, but we have to be careful how much we can generalize this. Beyond that, I think it is important to find out, in a given contanimated pot, just how much is in there? I'll go back to my one example, the traces of cocaine on money is a funny, silly fact, but completely unimportant and useless from a health standpoint, since it is too small to have an effect on anyone.

And here:

Joe Mama wrote:

Bacms wrote:Hence can we please all calm down and wait for real data before jumping into conclusions?

We aren't going to get any "real data" (statistically significant data), unless a wealthy Warhammer player decides to spend way too much time and money on this. More data however, is always interesting and always welcomed. (For me, especially on how much bacteria is in a pot, not just whether it is present or not.)

All of these came before the issue of defamation arose.

Joe Mama wrote:You are not discussing this in good faith at all and I will no longer discuss this with you in this thread.

And that I believe, is the pot calling the kettle black. Passive aggressive much?

Joe Mama wrote:
LOL. Passive aggressive much?

Well, I was pointing out the lack of proof on the OP's part, but it can also apply on your claim. Although in your case you just implied something, really. Crossed my mind too but I just let it pass.

Oh lordy lordy lordy, for someone who doesn't care about this, you sure spend a lot of time writing!
Briefly, because really, I can't continue with this nonsense:

angryboy2k wrote:In case you've forgotten, you've mentioned statistical significance at least three times

OH NO, YOU ARE RIGHT! How could I have been so blind! WHY did I mention stastitical significance and the limitations of science? Why did I try to put things into perspective? Why did I champion the free flowing of informaiton, unlike others? I am SO STUPID for providing context in a thread! I am going to go kill myself now. Goodnight!

Joe Mama wrote:Oh lordy lordy lordy, for someone who doesn't care about this, you sure spend a lot of time writing!
Briefly, because really, I can't continue with this nonsense:

Funny that, because you said you weren't going to answer in this thread anymore. If you're referring to my not caring in my PM however, it was in reference to the identities of you and the OP. Reading comprehension was taught around the same time as the bit about bacteria being everywhere.

Joe Mama wrote:

angryboy2k wrote:In case you've forgotten, you've mentioned statistical significance at least three times

OH NO, YOU ARE RIGHT! How could I have been so blind! WHY did I mention stastitical significance and the limitations of science?

I have no idea. The OP wasn't talking about everyone's paint; just his. You did claim it was because of defamation though - and took offense when I ignored you on that.

Joe Mama wrote:I am going to go kill myself now. Goodnight!

Sounds like a plan. Let us know the results and be sure to provide statistically significant data.

angryboy2k wrote:I have no idea. The OP wasn't talking about everyone's paint; just his.

Oh this is TOO GOOD. He wrote a thread in a public forum to say his paint had something in it, and in no way were people supposed to wonder / worry about the possibility of bacteria in their pots. YES, THAT'S IT. I believe you!

Also, I like your additional message, in that people should not be informed. We certainly don't want all those people to know about statistics when they are not wondering / worrying about this issue. Educating people is WRONG! I am such a loser!


Ah... ok, now. Done with the absurdity. Sorry for feeding the, well you know. Go ahead and get the last word, make it a good one!

I wish this thread would be locked - right now it serves no purpose other than e-peen stroking.

The OP left in a primadona rage after his "so-called" data was contested and people asked to see it. The claim that he would not show it due to legal reasons is ludicrous, as he can still be prosecuted by being defamatory, which strangely is better applied when you make unsupported claims (as this is the case) than when you show the basis of your assumptions.

Expanding this particular case, I can also say that I've bought a brand new confocal microscope at my own expense to check the contents of 27.000 pots of DM and I found compulsory evidence that the Iraqui's WMDs and a miraculous cure for premature baldness are among its contents. And then I will show nothing to support that because I am so scared of a possible lawsuit.
Would the staunch defenders of the OP support my claim too?

Does this make sense? Nope - but it smells fishy, almost as much as DM and this whole thread.

Curiously enough - I am also a biologist. I don't claim to be an expert in microbiology but I have what can be called a "biological common sense".
Even though I have access to a University Lab, I lack the patience of Snarky in reasoning with people over "ze internets". And I have to commend him for his attempts and patience.
Science is more often than not misunderstood and the public opinion will more readily side with the self-made backyard scientists than with proper scientific method.


Fecal (or faecal) bacteria are everywhere - from water resources to the Sea. Most water for consumption is monitored in terms of bacteriological content and the main parameter is the percentage of fecal coliforms, which needs to be within a threshold.
So following the OP reasoning - We are drinking poop mixers!
And sadly in a certain way we are...
This one of the reasons a Biology degree ruins your life (among others).

The fact that there is a few bacteria, regardless of its origin does not correlate with "OMG I hav ze poop in ze palette!".
I even go further as to bet that every "average Joe" eats fecal bacteria daily - and likes it. And does not get sick due to it. It is all a question of dosage - and what would look like "omg its millions of the meanies" it is usual within the thresholds.

As for the "special boss bacteria", considering that DM is a widespread wash, apparently some of us lick their painting stuff and no one is streaming the body-chocolate like Niagara, I assume it is not present in pathological quantities.

Considering FDA and other similar agencies and the fact that these paints are marketed to kids mainly - I think it is safe to assume that Citadel is not stupid to the point that they wouldn't cover their bases in what could be a multi-million lawsuit.
After all they know how to take our money in a brilliant way and would not make such a mistake.

There's a tendency of late to try to create a wide-spread germophobia. People scared of what they can't see will waste a lot of money fighting a problem that does not exist. It's a great consumer base to tap into. And the scatological pressure made by the OP that" it is poop, milord! Poop, I tell ye!" seems to fit this particular trend.

I would not be surprised if at any point now, some brand would announce brush-licking-friendly washes after this tentative PR campaign.

I ride...for Thread Lockage!

mathuselah wrote: And the scatological pressure made by the OP that" it is poop, milord! Poop, I tell ye!" seems to fit this particular trend.

My favourite line in this thread!

omuh-god I have had some reaper paints that grow mold and could put Nurgle's smell to shame... Always wondered if I'd open a pot and turn into a plaguebearer or something...

Sigh.

No, this is my only account, guys. Verifiable easily by mods. Since AB2k joined in 2009 though, and I joined in January... I really don't have that kind of foresight. Thanks for assuming I'm both an idiot AND a master deceiver.

Anyway, for those who haven't been put off by nonsense yet, the results on the other five pots came back. Bacteria in em all, except one.
Sadly, "Does it smell?" was not a test I asked for, so I have no way of knowing if it smelled or not.

I'd say there's a pretty good chance the smell comes from bacteria being in there, so now my mission is to be the weirdo the goes to the three GW stores in my city, opening all the pots of wash and smelling them, looking for one that is odor neutral to test.

Till then, go ahead and do that self validating wiener-waving thing if you like.

Archim3des wrote:Anyway, for those who haven't been put off by nonsense yet, the results on the other five pots came back. Bacteria in em all, except one.

Which bacteria? How much?

All of them. Every bacteria simultaneously.

Like you care, or that I would care about telling you specifically.

Archim3des wrote:
Sadly, "Does it smell?" was not a test I asked for, so I have no way of knowing if it smelled or not.
I'd say there's a pretty good chance the smell comes from bacteria being in there, so now my mission is to be the weirdo the goes to the three GW stores in my city, opening all the pots of wash and smelling them, looking for one that is odor neutral to test.

Sorry Archim3des but I think you will never be able to test this by finding a pot that does not smell. Unless you identify the compound that causes the smell and identify a bacteria that might be producing it the amount of smell will always be relative. It might not smell to you but bacteria are probably already having a party there so you will find bacteria anyway. I would be rather skpetical if you don't.

Archim3des wrote:All of them. Every bacteria simultaneously.

Like you care, or that I would care about telling you specifically.

This does not help in anything to prove your point or to raise confidence in your results. If you are not interested in proving your point it is fine just don't post anymore than

Archim3des wrote:Like you care, or that I would care about telling you specifically.

That statement of yours is anti-science and anti-knowledge. Clearly MORE information here would be to the benefit of ANYONE interested in this thread. The fact that you not only REFUSE to provide info, but act with such an attitude when people ask for it, shows you are not taking this seriously at all.

This is not how scientists or any sensible people operate:

"I found something in my test"
"What?"
"Screw you, jive turkey!"


Do try to become pro-science and pro-knowledge. Step into the light, dude.

Bacms wrote:This does not help in anything to prove your point or to raise confidence in your results. If you are not interested in proving your point it is fine just don't post anymore than

I'm interested in keeping promises I've made to anyone still interested. I said I'd post what I found, results came back, I posted them. Word kept.
Past that, I could give a flying shag at a rolling donut whether or not several of you believe me or die of a long, dehydrating, lingering diarrheal death. In some cases it is my fondest wish.

I'm not out to prove anything, nor do I have to. People who I have deemed worthy of discussing it further with will get further details, where I hope that discourse that rises above playground bullying will occur. Everyone else can hang out here until the thread gets locked, as I sincerely hope it will be.

If you don't say what bacteria and how much, your information is meaningless.

I don't understand why this thread has become heated or so complicated. Testing could have been done openly and discussed in a more reasonable manner. There's some funny attitudes on display, some poor science, some grandstanding, some paranoia, some rather overblown and panicked statements. It should be more straightforward than this without all the secrecy stuff which I think is childish.

Archim3des wrote:People who I have deemed worthy of discussing it further with will get further details

So you play favorites, keep secrets and don't give a crap about informing the general public here. Gotcha.

Archim3des wrote:Past that, I could give a flying shag at a rolling donut whether or not several of you believe me or die of a long, dehydrating, lingering diarrheal death. In some cases it is my fondest wish.

Yes, that's a reasonable response to an online debate. I am not sure which is your finest quality, your willingness to share or your sunny, cheerful disposition. Either way, I am sure a few dozen lurkers are curious about what bacteria was found in your pots. Do you not care about anyone else's interests? If so, why even start this thread?

Howard A Treesong wrote:If you don't say what bacteria and how much, your information is meaningless.

I don't understand why this thread has become heated or so complicated. Testing could have been done openly and discussed in a more reasonable manner. There's some funny attitudes on display, some poor science, some grandstanding, some paranoia, some rather overblown and panicked statements. It should be more straightforward than this without all the secrecy stuff which I think is childish.

Yes, it got very, very odd after about page 3

Man, that would have been great, huh?

Honest assessment of that happening now, even after my repeated public apologies and attempts to right the boat?
Yeah, its a damn shame.

Yes, I'm an unscientific jerkyface no proof providing potential liar who started a great thread until the arguing started. I can live with this.


Have at it, jackals! I'm one again unsubbing this horrible shambling monster.

Archim3des wrote:Yes, I'm an unscientific jerkyface no proof providing potential liar who started a great thread until the arguing started. I can live with this.

But you have data which you don't share.

Archim3des wrote:
I'm interested in keeping promises I've made to anyone still interested. I said I'd post what I found, results came back, I posted them. Word kept.

Sorry but saying results are back and you found all the bacteria together is far from posting results. Plus the results from your first report were: I found one bacteria and it is a gram negative. That is exactly the problem people are having with you. You want us to believe you but then put us off when we ask for all the results rather than the subset you decided to present us with.
I was genuinely interested in your results but when you shift the interest from the topic to say there is poop in the wash and start posting you wish people to have a long diarrheal death I definitely start to doubt your mental sanity.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
But you have data which you don't share.

That's hardly unprecedented. How does Pfizer make Viagra? They won't share the info.
I do share it - I'm typing a PM right now! Send me a PM, ask nicely, and you might get some of this info I'm hoarding. Others have.
Of course, if I've written you off as an insufferable jagoff who caused me to lose interest in maintaining my own thread, I may not reply to you.

Bacms wrote: I definitely start to doubt your mental sanity.

As opposed to my physical sanity?

Archim3des wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
But you have data which you don't share.

That's hardly unprecedented. How does Pfizer make Viagra? They won't share the info.
I do share it - I'm typing a PM right now! Send me a PM, ask nicely, and you might get some of this info I'm hoarding. Others have.
Of course, if I've written you off as an insufferable jagoff who caused me to lose interest in maintaining my own thread, I may not reply to you.

Speaking objectively, you seem to come off as the "insufferable jagoff" from this post.

I'd actually recommend editing it so that people don't start bashing you again.

NOTE: I don't care about the facts one way or another, I just don't want anyone getting banned or warned (Including OP) over this trivial thing that has been blown out of proportion by both sides of whatever the argument is.