--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > LOL. She [Ruth] showed, over and over again, that she > > hadn't even bothered to read the URLs I posted and then, > > rather than saying "well, I haven't had time yet," she > > instead left in a huff. > > > > You have an interesting definition of "integrity" here. > > As do you. She showed, over and over, that > she *had* read the material she discussed. > She just didn't see it the way you do. >
She questioned whether or not the study had been published in a peer reviewed journal. The publishing house is prominently display on the first page: Elsivier. Its a well-known publisher of scientific journals. She suggested that EEG research of the study was not ground-breaking when in fact, the first sentence in the study said it was not about EEG research. What am to conclude about her having looked at the first page of the study? What am I to conclude about YOU having looked at the first page of the study? > Did you see the moonwalking bear, Lawson? > > http://www.dothetest.co.uk/ > > No? Could it possibly have been because you > had been told to look for something else? > > Same with the way you "read" the "research." > As Judy has been known to say: non sequitur. Lawson
