On 7 Apr 2007 21:53:56 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA"
<science@zzz.com>:

[Idiotic top-posting corrected again; why not learn from the
correction of your mistakes? Oh, yeah; I forgot. Never
mind...]

Bob Casanova wrote:

On 7 Apr 2007 06:29:55 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA"
<science@zzz.com>:

<snip unsupported assertions>

Strange; there doesn't seem to be anything left...

Still nothing left but smoke and mirrors; i.e., nothing of
substance.

Bob Casanova wrote:

On 6 Apr 2007 02:09:06 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA"
<science@zzz.com>:

...leave us real researchers alone.

You wouldn't know real research if it bit you in the ass.
Here's a hint: *Real* research involves examining data, not
asserting preconceived notions and twisting or ignoring
inconvenient facts.

<snip>

You seem to be snorting a bit too much swamp gas these days!  Not to
worry, you still have your time-compressed crash-test dummy  How's
that working for you?

Are you under the mistaken impression that you make any sort
of sense, rather than (as is obvious to anyone reading your
posts) performing the written equivalent of drug-induced
free-association? And are you under the mistaken impression
that you have any sort of actual evidence to support your
assertions, rather than the delusions induced by delirium
tremens in an obviously paranoid conspiracy theorist (that's
you, since you probably wouldn't understand if not led by
the hand)?

If so, you're wrong. As usual.
-- 

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless