On 1 Mar 2007 07:10:26 -0800, jeremyrh.geo@yahoo.com wrote:
>On 1 mrt, 15:14, Martin wrote:
>> On 1 Mar 2007 05:57:52 -0800, jeremyrh....@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 1 mrt, 14:44, Martin wrote:
>> >> On 1 Mar 2007 04:24:33 -0800, jeremyrh....@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >On 1 mrt, 13:10, Martin wrote:
>> >> >> On 1 Mar 2007 02:41:08 -0800, jeremyrh....@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On 1 mrt, 11:43, Deeply Filled Mortician
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Let is be knownst that on Thu, 1 Mar 2007 06:59:08 +0100,
>> >> >> >> m...@privacy.net (Mister Bartlett) writted:
>>
>> >> >> >> >Deeply Filled Mortician
>> >> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Seems to me sometimes people like to slap a label on in a bid to end
>> >> >> >> >> reasonable debate.
>>
>> >> >> >> >"Reasonable debate"? Seems to me that this "debate" is characterised by
>> >> >> >> >Mary presenting a hypothesis and backing it up with published research,
>> >> >> >> >while you, iReid and Martin reply by shouting "not listening, not
>> >> >> >> >listening, not listening" like any toddler having a tantrum.
>>
>> >> >> >> 'Seems' being the operative word here. It 'seems' to me that you are
>> >> >> >> convinced, and don't want to question the study.
>>
>> >> >> >I don't have a problem with quetioning the study. I have a problem
>> >> >> >with questioning it without even having read it, which is what you
>> >> >> >did.
>>
>> >> >> Since the study has yet to be published, how can we read the published research?
>>
>> >> >Didn't you give a link to it on the Elsevier site[1]? I know yesterday
>> >> >is a long time ago, but still ...
>>
>> >> I gave a link to the abstract.
>>
>> >Look again -http://www.TinyURL.com/2e8kuu.
>>
>> >Spotting things on web pages is not your strong suit, is it?
>>
>> Are you blind? How big a font do you need to be able to read "ABSTRACT"?
>
>ROFL !!! - now look a little bit further down the page. Can you see
>where it says "Article Outline"? That's the outline of the article.
>See those things in different colours? Those are links, to different
>sections of the article. Try clicking one. See what happens? (Where
>did you suppose I'd found the "acknowledgements" yesterday?)
On a lycra clad fool "google"group.
>Damn
>clever, this interweb thingy !!!
If you are obsessive enough. Did you do the full Mixi course?
I started to think you had published it yourself. :o)
I still find it odd that my other Internet bicycle obsessive has more or less
the same view of Dr Ian Wilson's experiments, as cynical old DFM and myself.
--
Martin
|