On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 01:03:01PM -0000, Andrew Crystall wrote: > Excuse me? He's just been slammed because he hasn't used proper > scientific methodology.
Excuse me? Where has it been established scientifically that he hasn't used proper scientific methodology? And where has it been established scientifically that his points, carefully elaborated and in print for all to see, with references, are invalid? > That means the book - as I said at the time - doesn't use all the > avaliable data and his interpretations of some of the data is shaky. Prove it. If I were to stoop to your level, I might claim that your evaluation doesn't use all available data and your interpretation of the article and book is shaky. > I'm not an enviromental scientist. I don't pretend to be. Despite his > claims to the contrary, he did. Please cite where he claimed to be an environmental scientist. On the copy of the book I read, his bio says no such thing. > I don't think it's worth discussing it with you because you'll just > twist anything I say on the issue to prove that I didn't say anything. Everyone twists what you say. Awwwwww, poooooor Andy. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
