In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> Emma Thackery wrote:
> > In article >,
> > zxcvbob > wrote:
> >
> >> You however get hysterical about *everything*. You really need to
> >> specialize. Otherwise you'll burn yourself out.
> >
> > I note for the record that instead of addressing the topic like an
> > adult, you can only make a personal attack. That shouts "lack of
> > substance". Unable to address my questions regarding your previous
> > claims, you respond like a juvenile. Sounds to me like you're the
> > hysterical one. If you cannot conduct yourself rationally, don't expect
> > others to take the trouble to respond.

I can only assume you won't respond to my questions because you don't
have a cogent response.

> Mark already refuted your claims.


That's pretty funny. Mark refuted no such thing because I actually made
no substantive claims on this topic.

I merely posted an article and asked a couple questions. That you and
Mark have whipped yourselves into a freakish frenzy, like two whirling
dervishes, because I simply posted an article betrays a hefty magnitude
of bias--- maybe even irrational bias--- on your part. That a
professional opinion on the topic, from the American Chemical society,
could activate such malevolence in you two says far more about your
character and aptitude than my alleged opinions. Either address the
topic absent all the jackassery or be ignored.