Nature is DELETING COMMENTS. I think this calls for further action against racial discrimination. I have found some addresses to contact and numbers to call. I urge readers here to do so IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE and FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 1.Nature Offices NatureLondon, UK The Macmillan Building 4 Crinan Street London N1 9XW United Kingdom T: +44 (0)20 7833 4000 F: +44 (0)20 7843 4640 New York, USA 75 Varick Street, 9th Floor New York NY 10013-1917 USA T: +1 212 726 9200 F: +1 212 696 9006 2. Also, you can write letters to other media [email protected] [email protected] 3. From previous comment of Matt Cai Please send the complains to the following peoples: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] [email protected], [email protected]
贴一下两位牛人的comments,但是木有截图…… Lai Jiang: It is a shame to see Nature, which nearly all scientists, including myself, regard as the one of the most prestigious and influential physical science magazines to publish a thinly-veiled biased article like this. Granted, this is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general populous to be in touch with and appreciate sciences, the authors and editors should at least present the readers with facts within proper context, which they failed to do blatantly.
First, to compare a player's performance increase, the author used Ye's 400m IM time and her performance at the World championship 2011, which are 4:28.43 and 4:35.15 respectively, and reached the conclusion that she has got an "anomalous" increase by ~7 sec (6.72 sec). In fact she's previous personal best was 4:33.79 at Asian Games 20101. This leads to a 5.38 sec increase. In a sport event that 0.1 sec can be the difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason that 5.38 sec can be treated as 7 sec.
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 sec over two years may seem impossible for an adult swimmer, but certainly happens among youngsters. Ian Thorpe's interview revealed that his 400m freestyle time increased 5 sec between the age of 15 and 162. For regular people including the author it may be hard to imagine what an elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures, combined with scientific and persistent training. But jumping to a conclusion that it is "anomalous" based on "Oh that's so tough I can not imagine it is real" is hardly sound.
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte's last 50m to Ye's is a textbook example of what we call to cherry pick your data. Yes, Lochte is slower than Ye in the last 50m, but (as pointed out by Zhenxi) Lochte has a huge lead in the first 300m so that he chose to not push himself too hard to conserve energy for latter events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the "use one's best efforts to win a match" requirement that the BWF has recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another topic worth discussing, probably not in Nature, though). On the contrary, Ye is trailing behind after the first 300m and relies on freestyle, which she has an edge, to win the game. Failing to mention this strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 sec faster (4:05.18) over all than Ye creates the illusion that a woman swam faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Put aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that implies the reader that something fishy is going on.
Fourth, another example of cherry picking. In the same event there are four male swimmers that swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 sec)3 and Ye (28.93 sec)4: Hagino (28.52 sec), Phelps (28.44 sec), Horihata (27.87 sec) and Fraser-Holmes (28.35 sec). As it turns out if we are just talking about the last 50m in a 400m IM, Lochter would not have been the example to use if I were the author. What kind of scientific rigorousness that author is trying to demonstrate here? Is it logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume he leads in every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science works.
Fifth, which is the one I oppose the most. The author quotes Tucks and implies that a drug test can not rule out the possibility of doping. Is this kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to educate its readers? By that standard I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered the theory works to a degree, and that should warrant a publication, until a counterexample is found. I could imagine that the author has a skeptical mind which is critical to scientific thinking, but that would be put into better use if he can write a real peer-reviewed paper that discusses the odds of Ye doping on a highly advanced non-detectable drug that the Chinese has come up within the last 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not to use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation. This paper, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are doping, and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a hearing by FINA to determine if Ye has doped. To ask the question that if it is possible to false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is, other than the drug that the test is not designed to detect, anyone who has taken Quantum 101 will tell you that everything is probabilistic in nature, and there is a probability for the drug in an athlete's system to tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight change as it may be, should we disregard all test results because of it? Let???￠?￠a€????￠a€??￠s be practical and reasonable. And accept WADA is competent at its job. Her urine sample is stored for 8 years following the contest for future testing as technology advances. Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't it be?
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-competition drug test is already in effect, which the author failed to mention. Per WADA president???￠?￠a€????￠a€??￠s press release5, drug testing for olympians began at least 6 months prior to the opening of the London Olympic. Furthermore there are 107 athletes who are banned from this Olympic for doping. That maybe the reason that ???￠?￠a€????…a€?everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing???￠?￠a€???????? Because those who did dope are already sanctioned? The author is free to suggest that a player could have doped beforehand and fool the test at the game, but this possibility certainly is ruled out for Ye.
Over all, even though the author did not falsify any data, he did (intentionally or not) cherry pick data that is far too suggestive to be fair and unbiased, in my view. If you want to cover a story of a suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece, explicitly or otherwise, but only showing evidences which favor your argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal like Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or report should be done.
Zhenxi Zhang said: I just want to add this: Phelps improved 4+ seconds in his 200 fly between 14-15 years old. Ian Thorpe also had a similar performance improvement. Ye is now 16. She was 160 cm in height and now 170 cm. Human biology also play a role a€“ she gets stronger and bigger naturally. Yes she can make up 5 seconds (NOT 7 seconds in the article) in a 400 IM that has more room for improvement, with good training she got in Australia.
In both the 400 IM and 200 IM finals, Ye were behind until freestyle. Well I guess there is "drug" that just enhances freestyle, but not the backstroke, breast, and fly. Does that make sense? Also, it is not professional to only mention that 'her showing in the last 50 metres, which she swam faster than US swimmer Ryan Lochte did when he won gold in the men?￠a??a?￠s 400 IM'. The whole fact is that Ye is more than 23 second slower than Lochte in 400 IM. Plus, Freestyle isn't Lochte's best leg, but it is Shiwen's best leg. Lochte had a huge lead on the field, and almost coasted to the finish. He wasn't pressured by the field to go all out that last few meters.
And before we get into the fact there's no way a woman should be able to come close to man's time for a final leg of 50m. May I present the following: Kate Ziegler set a WR in the 1500m freestyle. In the last 50m of her race she had a split of 29.27, which is ONLY 0.17s slower than Lochte final 50m. This was after she swam for 1100m longer than Lochte!
I feel the author would probably not write such a piece if Ye is an American or British. Neither country is clean from athletes caught by doping (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_performance-enhancing_drugs_in_the_Olympic_Games). Let's try not to use double standards on the great performance from countries other than US and European countries. [此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 20:28:58编辑过]
原来的副标题：'Performance profiling' could help catch athletes who use banned performance-enhancing drugs 现在的副标题：'Performance profiling' could help to dispel doubts. 改得太匆忙了吧，还给副标题加了个句号。。。
以下是引用 200lbs 的发言： editor在twitter上说是technical difficulty我猜他们被外星人袭击了，改天我也写个文章，肯定有文献和砖家说不能排除外星人存在的可能，但现有技术检测不........ ★ Sent from iPhone App: i-Reader Huaren Lite 7.56
结果刚回家7点左右看，最前面的已经变成今天早上9点多的评论了。
就在刚才，看到连9点多的都不见了，变成10点多的了。
而且最前面那个叫Brian Owens的编辑还跟别人争论的部分也全都不见了。
居然能这样删贴，太荒谬了！！！！！
有个评论给了几个投诉的方式。
Tob Autumn said:
Nature is DELETING COMMENTS. I think this calls for further action against racial discrimination. I have found some addresses to contact and numbers to call. I urge readers here to do so IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE and FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
1.Nature Offices
NatureLondon, UK
The Macmillan Building
4 Crinan Street
London N1 9XW
United Kingdom
T: +44 (0)20 7833 4000
F: +44 (0)20 7843 4640
New York, USA
75 Varick Street, 9th Floor
New York NY 10013-1917
USA
T: +1 212 726 9200
F: +1 212 696 9006
2. Also, you can write letters to other media
[email protected]
[email protected]
3. From previous comment of Matt Cai
Please send the complains to the following peoples:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
[email protected],
[email protected]
我中午看的时候还有昨天的评论，包括最前面的Zhenxi Zhang和Lai Jiang，他们两个应该是最先发的评论。
结果刚回家7点左右看，最前面的已经变成今天早上9点多的评论了。
就在刚才，看到连9点多的都不见了，变成10点多的了。
而且最前面那个叫Brian Owens的编辑还跟别人争论的部分也全都不见了。
居然能这样删贴，太荒谬了！！！！！
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 19:42:28编辑过]
看见了。为的是显现出那些水平不太高的来。有些发言正好让他们抓住中国 Nationalism 的辫子！
http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109
有人有备份之前的comments么 被删了我们就重新贴 到处贴 lai jiang的帖子隔壁有备份，不知道另一位的哪里有
mitbbs上貌似有人存档。
往下面拖ms还在
下面是别人存档的。
要截不？
我同学也这么说了，不但删评论，还偷偷修改了文章的副标题。有没有童鞋有截图啊
弱弱的说，内个，我电脑页面下午打开没有关掉，所以现在显示的留言最上面一条是2012-08-01 12:58 PM 7:49:00 PM的发言：
要截不？
赶紧截屏
能不能有个截图功能阿？
QQ截图就可以用的
弱弱的说，内个，我电脑页面下午打开没有关掉，所以现在显示的留言最上面一条是2012-08-01 12:58 PM 7:49:00 PM的发言：
要截不？
赶紧截！
我觉得要到NATURE去投诉，打电话，写邮件投诉！！！！！！！！！！
我首页贴出来一个网友给的地址和电话了。
赶紧截！
打开QQ，随便点开一个聊天对象展开对话框，用QQ的截图功能，保存就行
妈的，真的删了...恶心
截了，丫删了好多啊，截出３０多张照片来，５５５，用华人上传的好想只能一张张的来？肿么能快点呢？
好样的
mm有没有picasa之类的网络相册，上传以后散播这个相册，才更有作用
Lai Jiang:
It is a shame to see Nature, which nearly all scientists, including myself, regard as the one of the most prestigious and influential physical science magazines to publish a thinly-veiled biased article like this. Granted, this is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general populous to be in touch with and appreciate sciences, the authors and editors should at least present the readers with facts within proper context, which they failed to do blatantly.
First, to compare a player's performance increase, the author used Ye's 400m IM time and her performance at the World championship 2011, which are 4:28.43 and 4:35.15 respectively, and reached the conclusion that she has got an "anomalous" increase by ~7 sec (6.72 sec). In fact she's previous personal best was 4:33.79 at Asian Games 20101. This leads to a 5.38 sec increase. In a sport event that 0.1 sec can be the difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason that 5.38 sec can be treated as 7 sec.
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 sec over two years may seem impossible for an adult swimmer, but certainly happens among youngsters. Ian Thorpe's interview revealed that his 400m freestyle time increased 5 sec between the age of 15 and 162. For regular people including the author it may be hard to imagine what an elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures, combined with scientific and persistent training. But jumping to a conclusion that it is "anomalous" based on "Oh that's so tough I can not imagine it is real" is hardly sound.
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte's last 50m to Ye's is a textbook example of what we call to cherry pick your data. Yes, Lochte is slower than Ye in the last 50m, but (as pointed out by Zhenxi) Lochte has a huge lead in the first 300m so that he chose to not push himself too hard to conserve energy for latter events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the "use one's best efforts to win a match" requirement that the BWF has recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another topic worth discussing, probably not in Nature, though). On the contrary, Ye is trailing behind after the first 300m and relies on freestyle, which she has an edge, to win the game. Failing to mention this strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 sec faster (4:05.18) over all than Ye creates the illusion that a woman swam faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Put aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that implies the reader that something fishy is going on.
Fourth, another example of cherry picking. In the same event there are four male swimmers that swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 sec)3 and Ye (28.93 sec)4: Hagino (28.52 sec), Phelps (28.44 sec), Horihata (27.87 sec) and Fraser-Holmes (28.35 sec). As it turns out if we are just talking about the last 50m in a 400m IM, Lochter would not have been the example to use if I were the author. What kind of scientific rigorousness that author is trying to demonstrate here? Is it logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume he leads in every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science works.
Fifth, which is the one I oppose the most. The author quotes Tucks and implies that a drug test can not rule out the possibility of doping. Is this kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to educate its readers? By that standard I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered the theory works to a degree, and that should warrant a publication, until a counterexample is found. I could imagine that the author has a skeptical mind which is critical to scientific thinking, but that would be put into better use if he can write a real peer-reviewed paper that discusses the odds of Ye doping on a highly advanced non-detectable drug that the Chinese has come up within the last 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not to use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation. This paper, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are doping, and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a hearing by FINA to determine if Ye has doped. To ask the question that if it is possible to false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is, other than the drug that the test is not designed to detect, anyone who has taken Quantum 101 will tell you that everything is probabilistic in nature, and there is a probability for the drug in an athlete's system to tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight change as it may be, should we disregard all test results because of it? Let???￠?￠a€????￠a€??￠s be practical and reasonable. And accept WADA is competent at its job. Her urine sample is stored for 8 years following the contest for future testing as technology advances. Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't it be?
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-competition drug test is already in effect, which the author failed to mention. Per WADA president???￠?￠a€????￠a€??￠s press release5, drug testing for olympians began at least 6 months prior to the opening of the London Olympic. Furthermore there are 107 athletes who are banned from this Olympic for doping. That maybe the reason that ???￠?￠a€????…a€?everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing???￠?￠a€???????? Because those who did dope are already sanctioned? The author is free to suggest that a player could have doped beforehand and fool the test at the game, but this possibility certainly is ruled out for Ye.
Over all, even though the author did not falsify any data, he did (intentionally or not) cherry pick data that is far too suggestive to be fair and unbiased, in my view. If you want to cover a story of a suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece, explicitly or otherwise, but only showing evidences which favor your argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal like Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or report should be done.
1http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=1241
2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4
3http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/men-400m-individual-medley/phase=swm054100/index.html
4http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-400m-individual-medley/phase=sww054100/index.html
5http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference/? utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference
Zhenxi Zhang said:
I just want to add this: Phelps improved 4+ seconds in his 200 fly between 14-15 years old. Ian Thorpe also had a similar performance improvement. Ye is now 16. She was 160 cm in height and now 170 cm. Human biology also play a role a€“ she gets stronger and bigger naturally. Yes she can make up 5 seconds (NOT 7 seconds in the article) in a 400 IM that has more room for improvement, with good training she got in Australia.
In both the 400 IM and 200 IM finals, Ye were behind until freestyle. Well I guess there is "drug" that just enhances freestyle, but not the backstroke, breast, and fly. Does that make sense? Also, it is not professional to only mention that 'her showing in the last 50 metres, which she swam faster than US swimmer Ryan Lochte did when he won gold in the men?￠a??a?￠s 400 IM'. The whole fact is that Ye is more than 23 second slower than Lochte in 400 IM. Plus, Freestyle isn't Lochte's best leg, but it is Shiwen's best leg. Lochte had a huge lead on the field, and almost coasted to the finish. He wasn't pressured by the field to go all out that last few meters.
And before we get into the fact there's no way a woman should be able to come close to man's time for a final leg of 50m. May I present the following: Kate Ziegler set a WR in the 1500m freestyle. In the last 50m of her race she had a split of 29.27, which is ONLY 0.17s slower than Lochte final 50m. This was after she swam for 1100m longer than Lochte!
I feel the author would probably not write such a piece if Ye is an American or British. Neither country is clean from athletes caught by doping (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_performance-enhancing_drugs_in_the_Olympic_Games). Let's try not to use double standards on the great performance from countries other than US and European countries.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 20:28:58编辑过]
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 20:43:59编辑过]
弱弱的说，内个，我电脑页面下午打开没有关掉，所以现在显示的留言最上面一条是2012-08-01 12:58 PM 7:49:00 PM的发言：
要截不？
截! 先截了再说
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 20:33:37编辑过]
别跟我说就是editor一个人的事
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 20:34:27编辑过]
网速不好，为毛写着上传了，却看不到链接出来呢，上传十几次才出来５张
别着急，慢慢来。MM记得上传完以后截图在你电脑里也暂时别删除
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 20:49:04编辑过]
先允许发表一个cherry picking data 的文章。
然后编辑cherry picking 读者的comment...
到头来又要说中国网络暴民，economist就是这个调调。
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 21:03:31编辑过]
现在我看到的留言的都是中国人的名字了
用心良苦啊。呼吁截图的人，给大报爆料。我记得有些外国人的留言也很义愤填膺的。
用心良苦啊。呼吁截图的人，给大报爆料。我记得有些外国人的留言也很义愤填膺的。
re，唉，没留个心眼截图啊！当时我就想说，看看，不是我们反驳，有相当一部分名字是外国人
现在的副标题：'Performance profiling' could help to dispel doubts.
改得太匆忙了吧，还给副标题加了个句号。。。
截图还在不断消失ｉｎｇ，９：２３截图，最前一条评论已经变成这个：
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 21:25:17编辑过]
有没有人能把截图发到他们网上去呀？那个senior editor Noah Gray 在twitter上说，指责他们删贴要拿出截图证据，但我不会在twitter发图。他还@了好多支持他的人，有人说是technical trouble。 这是那人的帐号，https://twitter.com/noahWG/
有没有人能把截图发到他们网上去呀？那个senior editor Noah Gray 在twitter上说，指责他们删贴要拿出截图证据，但我不会在twitter发图。他还@了好多支持他的人，有人说是technical trouble。 这是那人的帐号，https://twitter.com/noahWG/
问他为啥改副标题呀，要不是副标题misleading为什么要改，如果misleading为啥不道歉，难道副标题也是系统自己改的？
Noah Gray
?@noahWG
@warstreet
which facts? Comment deletion? Nature is not actively deleting. Tech
trouble. I never said we weren't anyway. I asked for proof.
这是他说的，有点死猪不怕开水烫的意思。如果能有个截图的连接就好了，我试着copy picture link, 但是显示不出来。twitter帐户很好注册，我也使刚刚注册的，多注册一点去说他吧。
木有推特的帐号，我的截图请随意引用
我想上传截图，但是有没有长一点的图，能显示出comments先后顺序，现在只有最上面一条回复，不清楚是先回复的在上面还是后回复的上面。
真的很难相信能无耻到这种程度。。。
我想上传截图，但是有没有长一点的图，能显示出comments先后顺序，现在只有最上面一条回复，不清楚是先回复的在上面还是后回复的上面。
我还在研究怎么上传截图，是不是丢一个picutre link？我以为twitter不能上图
我忘记是几点打开的网页了，但是副标题当时已经是“'Performance profiling' could help to dispel doubts.”
只是评论的最上面一条显示的时间是“2012-08-01 12:58 PM”
这里有上传图片的教程。不知道能不能镶嵌大图片。
https://support.twitter.com/articles/20156423#
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 21:39:58编辑过]
接第四页的继续上传
以下是引用200lbs在8/2/2012 9:28:00 PM的发言：
我想上传截图，但是有没有长一点的图，能显示出comments先后顺序，现在只有最上面一条回复，不清楚是先回复的在上面还是后回复的上面。
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 21:52:05编辑过]
Done
现在他们又说是IT的问题了。。。。
死脑残
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 21:55:45编辑过]
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 21:59:27编辑过]
我刚听说nature这样general杂志的编辑都是failed scientists
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 22:20:25编辑过]
还不当回事呢，开玩笑说自己粉丝来信。。。
此主题相关图片如下callaway_fans.png：
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 21:59:27编辑过]
这种就叫做“恬不知耻”。
我刚听说nature这样general杂志的编辑都是failed scientists
My boss calls those CNS editors failed scientists too. It's always an unfair game..
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 22:20:25编辑过]
观察了一下，貌似是因为显示的评论数有限制。每出一个新的comment，以前的comment就消失一个。我们说别人无理由指责的时候，自己也先看看清楚再指责。
观察了一下，貌似是因为显示的评论数有限制。每出一个新的comment，以前的comment就消失一个。我们说别人无理由指责的时候，自己也先看看清楚再指责。
你真的仔细观察了吗？现在屏幕上显示的今天早上3:09am到中午11:03am的发言，你相信今天中午之后都没有任何留言吗？
以下是引用DC2013在8/2/2012 11:01:00 PM的发言：
观察了一下，貌似是因为显示的评论数有限制。每出一个新的comment，以前的comment就消失一个。我们说别人无理由指责的时候，自己也先看看清楚再指责。
请看５６楼，之前我也提过这个疑问。评论消失的话，发表评论的人有疑问不是很正常的事情么？如果真是系统设置的问题，但是编辑方面只要说明就好了呀。你现在说的也只是你自己的猜测而已－－－－
editor在twitter上说是technical difficulty
editor在twitter上说是technical difficulty我猜他们被外星人袭击了，改天我也写个文章，肯定有文献和砖家说不能排除外星人存在的可能，但现有技术检测不........
★ Sent from iPhone App: i-Reader Huaren Lite 7.56
以下是引用 孔雀翎 的发言：
截了，丫删了好多啊，截出３０多张照片来，５５５，用华人上传的好想只能一张张的来？肿么能快点呢？
★ Sent from iPhone App: i-Reader Huaren Lite 7.52
你真的仔细观察了吗？现在屏幕上显示的今天早上3:09am到中午11:03am的发言，你相信今天中午之后都没有任何留言吗？
那我们记录一下吧，我现在看的第一个评论是#47735，最后一个是#48046
19分的时候，是#47742，48053；
刚才是#47744，48055
不过的确不能排除他们用限制显示comment数量的方法隐性删贴。
好像Ｎａｔｕｒｅ 过的是火星时间，只有ＡＭ，没有ＰＭ。
nature真是欢乐多，我彻底服了。这次的editor该fire了，显然他自己都不知道自己网站是个神马情况。
好像Ｎａｔｕｒｅ 过的是火星时间，只有ＡＭ，没有ＰＭ。
实在太可疑，一定是被火星人占领了。
请看５６楼，之前我也提过这个疑问。评论消失的话，发表评论的人有疑问不是很正常的事情么？如果真是系统设置的问题，但是编辑方面只要说明就好了呀。你现在说的也只是你自己的猜测而已－－－－
谢谢你的提醒，目前继续观察中。我今天上午在那发的comment也看不到了，所以我才跑去看到底怎么回事。
那我们记录一下吧，我现在看的第一个评论是#47735，最后一个是#48046
现在是第一个47751，最后一个48062.
什么最自由、民主的社会，全是狗屁。到哪儿都一样。
你真的仔细观察了吗？现在屏幕上显示的今天早上3:09am到中午11:03am的发言，你相信今天中午之后都没有任何留言吗？
嗯。我有 所谓删帖前的 网页。 现在网页的回复的确能和之前 的 对上！ 时间是连续
怎么感觉咱们这么兴师动众的去留言反倒把这鸟人捧红了，实在是太给它脸了
要不考虑谁能用类似逻辑或者干脆按照原作的思路把名字改成费尔普斯或者其他美国运动员贴上去来反讽一下？
或者往种族歧视的道儿上引一下其他媒体关注，为什么这鸟人鸟杂志质疑的对象都是非裔和亚裔（不过俩运动员都不是美国人是否就不算种族歧视？）反正要揭穿它打着科普的大旗却藏私货“政治不正确”，不知道能引起争议否
现在是第一个47751，最后一个48062.
恩开始不一样了！现在第一个47756，最后一个48070。新评论涨了8个，旧的消了5个。
恩开始不一样了！现在第一个47756，最后一个48070。新评论涨了8个，旧的消了5个。
现在是47762，48080，新评论涨了10个，旧的消了6个。的确不是出一个没一个啊。