billo, I have decided to only answer questions from you concerning what you
state that I have said when you put my actual statement in quotes. As a
professional courtesy I feel that I can ask such a request. I also insist
that you refrain from making inferences such as the following statements
that you have made that I feel have no place in a formal discussion between
professionals : "Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of
water, no doubt"; "Indeed when comparing one group that eats red beans and
arsenic and with a group that eats red beans, and the first group has an
increased death rate, Henry is convinced that means that red beans are
poisonous."; "You may think they're lying,"; "I know that you specialize in
psychic understanding of articles"; "But, Henry, if you want to claim the
authors are lying"; "And in all of this, he claims he doesn't have to bother
to read the articles because he just *knows* the details without reading.";
" No, "a lie." Henry, Paghat, et al. trot out articles that explicitly do
not claim what they say they claim. It's one thing to state one's belief.
That's fine. It's another to outright lie about what an article states.";
"Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training program
and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines";
"Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not
tested."; "What is meaningless is to use the Psychic Science Network to
pretend that something is being tested when it is not."; "Now, using the
Henry Psychic Method of assuming results,"; "Now, I know, Henry, that you do
consider comparing compliant vs noncompliant groups "meaningless"; "In
contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant"; .... I
could go on, but I have other things to do. I am willing to discuss things
at a formal professional level.

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/