[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] Assumptions
in your sidestepping you went in a direction where i honestly have no idea what your talking about. i think you misunderstood.
it's your challenge therefore the burden of proof on all this lies with you. prove it or dont.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Baker <jerry at bakerweb_biz>
Sent: Nov 9, 2005 11:10 AM
To: aquatic plants digest <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
Subject: Re: [APD] Assumptions
urville wrote:
> in this instance with the lines drawen as they are, and whats at stake
> and the amount of posts that have occured over this subject i'd be
> remissed if i didnt say that is exactly what you should do
If someone wants to challenge the notion that diffusion really happens,
I welcome their attempts to do so and I would be interested to read the
results of their endeavor. I feel compelled to point out that when
someone challenges an established principle, the burden of proof is on
them. My argument does not involve challenging the principles of
diffusion, so I am not going to test the validity of it. It is
intellectually dishonest to attempt to discredit the results of a
scientific investigation by representing established scientific
principles as open to controversy when they aren't. This is the *exact*
kind of junk that is going on in Kansas right now. The only difference
is that here the consequences are relatively trivial.
--
Jerry Baker
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants
________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants