On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:39:59 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:34:33 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:47:58 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
..
When the someone lies about their affiliation with a university,

We've already dealt with that. Elaine Ingham has in fact
association with Oregon State University. You have not presented
evidence that she has overstressed or misrepresented her association
to the university in her evidence to the Royal Commission.

the publication of a paper

We've already dealt with that, too. The paper had in fact been
published, when Elaine Ingham referred to it before the Commission,
she did not lie about its publication.

and claims higher statistical certainty than they
have trials

That's just statistical mumbojumbo. It claims -what- _??_

and discard data without documentation

Again, you said data that did not agree with the findings
was discarded. -What documentation do you have for that?-

I don't look any further.

I did check my evaluation of the statistics of the paper because it had been
some time since I had worked through a statistical presentation and didn't
want to make an error.

Nice to know, but you know, that reads more like a diary entry.

What we are interested in here is -what- did your alleged
statistical evaluation consist of, -what- were your observations,
and -what- did you conclude based on that.

Any one of the improprieties she fostered on the Royal Commission is
inexcusable in total they constitute fraud. And the scientific community
and most of the press agreed.

If that is so, how come there is no meat on your alleged
improprieties?



Does this help?

Not really, Jack. The question was, if Gordon has a rock-solid case,
why is there no substance in any of Gordon's allegations?


=======================================
Evidence in Rebuttal - Life Sciences Network
20 February 2001, 9:24 am
Press Release: New Zealand Life Sciences Network
snip