Hi, Sunday, November 21, 2004, 2:14:25 AM, Peter wrote:
> I already pointed one out. It's not my job to critique their web site > and I really don't care. Just because the local UK papers get their S&T > news from the BBC doesn't validate the BBC it only makes them just as > out of date. There's a Latin name for that logical failing but since > I've forgotten more formal logic than I remember you'll have to take my > word for it, or look it up. I'n beginning to wonder if you can read. I didn't say the UK papers get their stuff from the BBC, I said the BBC and the papers get it from press releases from journals such as 'Nature', which publish the original scientific papers. I also pointed to the source of this particular story which you claim is several years out of date. The source is the current edition of Nature (432, 345 - 352, 18 Nov 2004). Here is the abstract: http://tinyurl.com/5ou92. If the hypothesis is not new, then it is Nature that is out of date, not the BBC or the UK press. There's an Anglo-Saxon name for your logical fallacy. Regards, Bob
