On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:34:46 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
yes Gordon, I'm afraid you are flogging a dead horse. The woman could be
tried and convicted by every court in Denmark and Torsten will still never
admit that she might have been less than 100% truthful

what a maroon


Jim,

Torsten has the paper and I suppose as a chemist he can do statistics. He
could try to duplicate the statistical conclusions of the paper form data in
the paper. Showing his work of course.

Gordon, that is a misunderstanding of what a paper is, of what
you can expect to be able to do on the basis of the information
given in it. A scientific paper is generally not supposed to put
the reader in a position in relation to the raw data, such as to
make it possible for him to duplicate the statistical analysis
of it. One could say, a paper is meant to be read on the trust
that the authors and peer reviewers of the paper have done a
proper, sound job. This is not to say that the trust in this
cannot be called in question, only that it must be there
a priori and until it may be proved unwarranted.

So, lest you forget, you've made a serious allegation in relation
to this paper, namely that:

"data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded"

-------- WHAT DO YOU BASE THAT ON ???? ----------