H. Kuska reply to billo: please note that I said that the not having the
paragraph marker could of occurred after the editing process and that "Yes,
it could cause some confusion to some readers." (I was trying to bend over
backwards to accommodate your problem). Note the use of the word "some".
When I was composing that reply, I considered adding the word "initial"
before the word "confusion". In retrospect I probably should have as I
assume any scientist who would have had any initial confusion would have
done the logical thing - which is to repeat the calculation him/her self..

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
billo said: " In this case, the authors *did* state the referent group,
and
not just

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.



Here Henry, since you don't like the way the authors wrote their
article, I'll suggest you follow your own advice:

"The editor and the reviewers accepted this paragraph. They are
considered
experts in the field. If someone feels that there is something critically
incorrect about what they have accepted, he/she can submit their viewpoint
to be considered for publication. The stated criteria was a reviewed
paper,
this is a reviewed paper."


Go for it.


billo