Lead extraction with green tea: AAS reveals efficacious lead

[edkrueger]

I see, in an editorial in a not very reputable newspaper written by a layman/blogger/animal rights activist without a citation.

Don't attack the source. Show stats, or facts from other sources to challenge the information. Whether someone trusts the news source doesn't mean that what they are saying is automaticlly wrong. Claiming that you know about the author based on where they work is personal bias, too.

I fail to see why the burden lies on me to disprove a completely unreliable source. I claim I know about the author by reading his article and his bio page.

[Cyphre]

I see, in an editorial in a not very reputable newspaper written by a layman/blogger/animal rights activist without a citation.

Don't attack the source. Show stats, or facts from other sources to challenge the information. Whether someone trusts the news source doesn't mean that what they are saying is automaticlly wrong. Claiming that you know about the author based on where they work is personal bias, too.

I fail to see why the burden lies on me to disprove a completely unreliable source. I claim I know about the author by reading his article and his bio page.

The easiest thing in the world to do is to disagree. It takes no skill, no education, no reason, and no logic. I am not trying to be mean. Just saying that if you see information that is incorrect and you feel the need to say it is wrong then say why it is wrong.

If I were to say "The sky is blue" and you were answer to me is "It is not" and then go on to attack either me personally or the site that hosted my words, that does not make my words any less right or wrong.

You are claiming that the information is incorrect. So I personally would like to know why it is incorrect with facts or whatever information you have. I could care less about personal feelings about the host or the author. That does not help me know more about the subject. This subject interests me and must interest others.

[edkrueger]

I see, in an editorial in a not very reputable newspaper written by a layman/blogger/animal rights activist without a citation.

Don't attack the source. Show stats, or facts from other sources to challenge the information. Whether someone trusts the news source doesn't mean that what they are saying is automaticlly wrong. Claiming that you know about the author based on where they work is personal bias, too.

I fail to see why the burden lies on me to disprove a completely unreliable source. I claim I know about the author by reading his article and his bio page.

The easiest thing in the world to do is to disagree. It takes no skill, no education, no reason, and no logic. I am not trying to be mean. Just saying that if you see information that is incorrect and you feel the need to say it is wrong then say why it is wrong.

If I were to say "The sky is blue" and you were answer to me is "It is not" and then go on to attack either me personally or the site that hosted my words, that does not make my words any less right or wrong.

You are claiming that the information is incorrect. So I personally would like to know why it is incorrect with facts or whatever information you have. I could care less about personal feelings about the host or the author. That does not help me know more about the subject. This subject interests me and must interest others.

I disagree. A gave you plenty of reasons to doubt the truth of the statistic. You don't seriously believe the source is irrelevant to assessing the probability that something is true? If you do, it shows an inability to reason inductively. Also, suppose that a quack researcher starts research in an entirely new field and makes a claim. In this case, there is nothing to refute the claim. Do you believe it? Its very easy to claim something with out any evidence.

Anyone that has taken a serious biology course knows that animal analogues are chosen because of their close resemblance to humans with respect to the particular part of the biology being studied and are breed to resemble it more closely.

[Chip]

Since points have been mde on both sides and since this has begun to get ... personal, I suggest we move on!

Thank you kindly!
Chip
Immoderate TeaDrinker who happens to Moderate

[skilfautdire]

Rats are not people. Extracts are not green tea.

And I'm running the operating system to read TeaChat in a virtual machine.

[silverneedles]

Rats are not people. Extracts are not green tea.

And I'm running the operating system to read TeaChat in a virtual machine.

BeOS?

[beforewisdom]

Isn't BeOS long dead and the open source mutations of it a long way off from birth?