Top posting issues aside, you have no idea what it takes to make "good
science" or "to be accepted for publication in any even simi peer reviewed
science publication". Sentence structure alone pegs you as college
challenged much less doctorate qualified. No doctorate? No qualifications.

===============================================

On 06 Dec 2004 19:50:49 GMT, wrote:

> 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.