Re: KRS book: Geology

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 21:04:13 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx>
wrote:

>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.

I still can't make sense of it.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages