i should apologize that my message dated <Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:49 am ((PDT))> was likely hard to interpret. it provided a brief explanation about the 2002 scientific study on SE, the abstract of which Janice had posted. my posting was hard to interpret because part of what i submitted was evidently had inadvertently been removed before being posted. the deleted part included a few lines from Janice's earlier posting to define what i was responding to, as well as the two sentences from the abstract of that study, which my message referenced. oh well, "c'est la vie", as they say! i hope it made sense anyway. -barbara
