Rich <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<40AE0EDF.6070208@somewhere.com>...

Nevertheless, the fairly limited assertion that sub-Jupiter mass
planets exist in greater abundance is pretty well supported by 
the data on hand (with a few caveats).

Is it? I suggest that this is speculation on the order of the Drake
Equation, and as of yet backed by no data. And I suggest that
for most of the stars where planets have been detected,
terrestrial planets are unlikely or simply impossible due to
the dynamics of the gas giants.

Reread what I wrote, and note especially my addition of 
the phrase "the fairly limited assertion".  You are 
arguing about terrestrial planets, it seems.  The 
assertion in question concerns merely sub-Jupiter mass 
planets.  And there the data is very compelling.  Whether 
this can be extrapolated to the abundance of terrestrial 
planets is questionable, but on the whole the evidence 
is more supportive toward higher abundance of low-mass 
planets than not.  As to your statement that terrestrial 
planets may not be able to coexist with certain kinds of 
gas giants, that's an interesting point but does not bear 
much on the matter at hand.

Terrestrial planets may indeed be common, but I don't see any
way that can be extrapolated from the data we have, and I doubt
any will be found at most of the stars where we have detected
gas giants.

That was not the assertion.  I think you need to ask
yourself whether you are being properly skeptical or
simply contrarian.  Before the end of this decade we 
will have substantially useful stastics concerning the
abundance of terrestrial mass planets.  Perhaps you 
should take this time to analyze your position and 
decide if you are merely setting yourself up for being
proven spectacularly wrong.