On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:45:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

When the findings are used in a fraudulent manner before the work that the
paper is written from is preformed am strongly suspicious of the paper and
all connect to it.

But, that's highly circumstantial, is it not, if you want to prove
abominable discarding of data? :-)

However, let's see your evidence for the claim that findings of
the paper were used, before the work that the paper is written
from was performed.

When the statistical claims they make don't agree with
the data they publish I am more cynical about it.

You must be more specific, or noone will know what you are
critisising. Which statistical claims don't agree with
which data? If you can't answer that, you do not
have a critique of substance worth relating to.

I went to the effort ot have experts look at the paper and they came to the
same conclusions

Understand that unidentified experts making unidentified conclusions
that happens to agree with whatever you say just doesn't cut it.

and you can call OSU like I did and find out what Ms.
Ingram's relationship with them snip

Ms. Inghams affiliation is irrelevant to the question, if data
points was discarded that did not agree with the findings in
that paper.

If you can make that pig of a paper sing by making the statistics work
I will continue the discussion.

That's very kind of you. However don't you think it is about time
you coughed up some evidence for your claim that data that did not
agree with findings was discarded? How many times have you been
asked for that now. Five, seven times?