In article <4889898d$0$5985$ec3e2dad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
daybrown@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Patrick Keenan wrote:
> > "VTR" <vexjorge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:d8GdnR-kaYP8GxXVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> 9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering
> >> Journal
> >>
> >>
> >> With publication in an established civil engineering journal,
> >
> > Which is all of 2-years old... there are two issues. Yeah, that's
> > certainly established.
> This is the Internet Patrick, and academia is kinda behind the curve.
> That they are starting to catch up in the last two years is high time.
>
> Be that as it may, since I'm not an architect or mechanical engineer, I
> looked at some articles where I have some expertise. Like a degree in
> psych and experience with autistic kids in clinical settings.
>
> The Swedish study they published is thoroughly professional. There is
> even some daring in performing an analysis of twins, because the
> conventional lack of wisdom was so long that autism was a behavioral
> problem unrelated to genetic endowment or lack thereof.
>
> And since I was born on a farm, have raised cattle, and now live in the
> country again, I looked at the agricultural studies. Again, it did not
> at all, as implied in this thread, look like a vanity press. There was
> even a bit of challenge you mite not see in the standard "professional"
> ag journals in the disappointing results they got from zeolite, which
> has been hyped by commercial interests to control e. coli.
>
> Then too, since I've lived so much of my life in rural areas where the
> AC power is unreliable, I paid attention to the raps on power supplies
> and in this case, a stable oscillator, which is necessary for a DC
> inverter to operate properly to pick up the load when the power goes
> out. Again, it dont look like vanity press dude.
>
> You wanna try again with some specific points in which you think, if
> that is what you are capable of doing besides ad hominum, where the
> standards of scientific rigor was not adequate?
>
> The innumerable responses you and your fellow debunkers present which
> are no more than ad hominum, sup****ts the logical condition that those
> who are still searching for reasonable scientific analysis- have good
> cause to be doing so.
>
I guess you have to say something like that to convince yourself there
hasn't already been reasonable scientific analysis done. I suppose it's
hard to have your religion mocked.
--
BDK
BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
****llmaster
|
