In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
H. Kuska continuation of reply: notice they are discussing the data in Table
6 (for the reader the data in Table 6 does not even mention glyphosate, it
discusses classes of pesticides
(herbicides/insecticides/fumigants/fungicides/other)). Later in the
paragraph they then discuss other cases. Yes, they probably should have
started another paragraph at that point; perhaps they did; and that in the
typesetting process the indentation was lost - all we can conclude for sure
is that, for whatever the reason, a new paragraph marker is not there. That
doesn't mean that they intended for the referent group definition to apply
to the phosphine and glyphosate sentences nor does it mean that they are
lying. Yes, it could cause some confusion to some readers.


But not to those belonging to the Psychic Science Network. Who cares
what the authors actually wrote. I'll tell you what, Henry. If you
want to pretend that the authors did not mean what they wrote, please
feel free to contact them and ask them.

But before you do, I suggest you take time to read the article. And
if you want to maintain any credibility to them, don't pull out your
"I don't need to read the steenkin' paper" screed.


billo