Attempting to avoid sarcasm and rant (this time) the following is meant as serious discussion - if you can respond in kind I would enjoy your input.


In reviewing your posts I find only assertions that these individuals are biased and potentially deceptive in their results and that believing what they say is niave foolishness and the implication is that they should be ignored since they hold a position that things are severe. I haven't found one shred of actual evidence that they are wrong or any actual evidence that they may be motivated by anything other than academic persuit.

You may be right that they are biased and trying to raise a stink over something that isn't so just to (insert hidden agenda here). But my point is that you haven't shed any ilumination on the subject. If you have evidence (other than a rather benign optimism) that these studies are wrong or that the individuals behind them are biased or motivated by some hiden agenda then you haven't presented it. What is the bias? What is the hidden agenda? Where are their methods and procedures innaccurate? What studies have you done that lead you to a different opinion? How are your methods and procedures superior to theirs? What is your hidden agenda? What is your bias?

When I know as much about you and your opinion as I do about the individuals with which you disagree then I will be able to learn something meaningful. Perhaps you will convince me that they are decievers with a hidden agenda and I a niave fool for having believed them - perhaps not. Until I know more about you, your methods and procedures, your credentials and agendas I cannot even consider your opinion on a par with theirs.

I learn much from the results of others studies that I don't have the time, skill or inclination to validate through my own study. I do check the sources of this type of information for credentials and motivations when I need to make personal decisions based on such information. I am always interested when someone casts doubt on any information that has been presented and I find that often the most reliable truth comes from considering both sides of a debate. I find disagreement without discussion a waste of time. If you have anything other than wishful disagreement to present then out with it. To accuse these researchers of lack of integrity and active deciept merely because you disagree with them does not bring forth any new information that would help us to move the discussion forward.