David W. Fenton wrote:
On 30 Jun 2009 at 19:03, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 30 Jun 2009 at 7:24, Phil Daley wrote:
>I'm flabbergasted at the opposition the mere reporting of a fact has
>generating.
Because it isn't a "fact".
Yes, it *is* a fact: The studies where, in FACT, done, and did, in
FACT, reach the conclusions I reported.
This is the only FACT that I reported, but you and others:
You've reported hearsay. The factual basis for it remains elusive.
How is it hearsay to report what the studies found?
Are you claiming the studies *didn't* find this? If so, isn't it
incumbent on *you* to provide the refutation, rather than for me to
prove that what you've asserted is wrong?
I don't have anything TO refute even if I wanted to, and that is my
point. Show me the study, and I'll tell you what I think. If you
continue to allude to it as fact (no, the capitals are clearly
important: FACT) while also acknowledging ignorance of how it was
implemented, I don't think I'm the one with anything to prove.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
