Re: KRS book: Geology

Eric Stevens wrote:  lttir1l884jg3qq3q008a80vl0ddal4jef@xxxxxxx,

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 12:26:07 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx>
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:  2t8hr1hbq7bub7l1t4pg6itr1agj8qefk2@xxxxxxx,

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 01:26:02 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx>
wrote:

 --- snip ----

No, I think it is the published scattergram,
and if he did what you say he did, then he
presentend only 'positive' results.

He presented the results closest to that of the KRS.

That is what I'm saying: only the positive results. 

Do you really want the diagrams for *all* the materials which the
KRS clearly isn't?


I think it is the obe he used to plot the alternatives
closest to the that of the KRS.

And you believe him without seeing the _all_ the results? 

Why not? He's got nothing to gain and everything to lose by lying.
See http://www.d.umn.edu/geology/people/fsbios/ojakangas.html


I expected scattergrams. Dissapointing.
But looking at his 'palmares', are you sure
he did what you say he did?

--- snip----

Eric, you are hopeless 

I'm never without hope.

But what is it that you think he should have done? 

Please reread my previous post on this subject.

--
p.a.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KRS book: Geology
    ... and if he did what you say he did, then he presentend only 'positive' results. ... closest to the that of the KRS. ... But looking at his 'palmares', are you sure he did what you say he did? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: KRS book: Geology
    ... and if he did what you say he did, then he presentend only 'positive' results. ... KRS clearly isn't? ... closest to the that of the KRS. ... lying. ...
    (sci.archaeology)