I personally find it distasteful for you to post information from another site, (misleading the readership in believing it was an "article") and further muddy the waters, when an explanation was clearly provided by my self which you obviously overlooked or failed to understand yet is manifest by your insistance I cite a reference.
Utterly absurd, and destined to create angst with any mate attempting to aid the understanding of OTHER less obstinate or nescient members.
Lastly, considering other less patient vets would have told you to F-off long ago, I'll consider your "adversarial" comment a complimentary feature of my personality, lol!
Can't you appreciate the point he was trying to make though Jim??
He was misinformed on another board.
He was having a discussion/civil disagreement with BB and yourself and he posted the "reason" he believed what he did, which was a write-up some bro had done over on 'ology, and he was corrected. But he was only corrected by someone else's opnion. Although, we all know, the opinion he was corrected by had the benefit of also being correct.
Not everyone was in school for as long as you, not everyone is a "research warrior" who will do an 8 hour medline session as you will.
So, his request to you for a scholarly article seemed to me, to be an attempt at not repeating his historical mistake, of accepting someone's word as truth. Simply asking, why you believe what you believe, and he was met with signifigant angst IMO.
Sure the rest of us all realize that you know your shit, but how is he supposed to know? He just got here. You've only been here a year. He would have been foolish NOT to ask for a reference from you IMO.
Since a search of google would have turned up much more of bro-science that all of us (with the exception of maybe Dr. Scally) are susceptible to regurgitating at inopportune times.
Yes? Or am I off base....again.
