Thread:930310JL/@comment-258494-20160403012545/@comment-258494-20160408160333

I don't care if you absolutely absolutely absolutely disagree...you're wrong. You need to start thinking about this more objectively. If there's not enough context, then, you know what? You really shouldn't be doing "original research" here in the first place. Get your material published...whether by the GRG, or Rejuvenation Research, or Springer, or MPIDR, or IDL, or even a report in the news. Simply doing your own original research and then placing it on the 110 Club, on the Gerontology Wiki, etc. really isn't how science works. Let's not forget that if we allow "you" to do so, then what? Next, we have "everyone" with their own original-research "theory" of how things should be. Remember when Kevin DeLong was pushing that Andrew Hatch was 117? The whole idea of having something published first is that it is FILTERED...only the "elite" get materials published in RELIABLE SOURCES. You are talented...you could get a lot of this published. Already, the GRG is offering a compromise (one that WIKIPEDIA doesn't agree with) by offering to "publish" this type of research on the GRG website (but, even there, it has to go through the editorial review process). Some people want to win the lottery but not pay their taxes on the winnings. It's easy to do research "quickly" and faster than everyone else by just skipping a few steps and putting it on some blog or club or whatever. But in the long run, that type of "research" isn't going to make the grade. Doing things, following the scientific process, getting material published by reputable sources, will.Ryoung122 (talk) 16:03, April 8, 2016 (UTC)