This is what causes folk to wonder when the "mr. hyde" shows up to attempt
a save of the "dr. jeckle" side of the daring duo. It is lousy science.
It would never be accepted for publication in any even simi peer reviewed
science publication.


>This is exactly what I am talking about when you deal with folks who do not
>have a research background yet want to argue about data. it's worthless and
>a waste of time.
>
>Zoul wants "data". Roger, data is nothing more than information and it can,
>or cannot, be tied to research. If it is tied to research, you're out of
>your league trying to interpolate it. What Andrew has provided is data in
>the term of info. He, as I am, are well aware of whether it is research
>oriented or not. He, not I, *can* investigate research, research
>methodologies, citations and the like.