| The Central Scrutinizer 2006-02-28, 11:00 am |
| >I go test the hell out of his concept.
>And he is simply not accrate on a scientific level.
Oh, horse-hockey.
You keep tooting your own horn about your own scientific methodology,
and yet you never back it up with hard numbers (but at least you're
consistent in this regard). You say you 'test the hell out of his
concept'? Let's hear it, then! Outline your tests, your procedures,
your results. Don't just expect the world to believe that you test
theories. And don't reference other people's work, either. Let's hear
how you've tested Mike's theories and proved them inaccurate. (cue
Jeopardy music...)
I won't hold my breath... I'm tempted to go back in the group archives
and count up the number of times you've been asked a direct question
and simply ignored or deflected it. ;-)
Plus, please try to spell correctly. You come across as a pre-schooler,
or someone who is simply careless about how he communicates. Bad form
for an academic who's as desperate as you are to be taken seriously,
and EASILY remedied by a simple once-over before hitting the Post
button.
BD
|