>It may have been better to address the study,

What is there to say?  It is what it is, and says nothing new to me.

>So far, I have yet to see much anything that counters what he has posted
>about the lack of major field effects of the nics. 

Either there aren't any, which is the easy answer, or people have not figured 
out the right way to see them -- thus the various suggestions on how to look 
better and the suggestion that maybe the effects are not what is expected
and thus the effects are actually being filtered out in all the normal stuff that 
trained scientists in the softer sciences do when confronted with 
unco-operative data and there is no chance of re-running the experiment.

Belive me, in mechaniscs or physics or chemistry, if an experiment has even one 
single anomalous result, nobody rests until it is explained.  In bee science or
as Andy called it, "BS", the data gets massaged and filtered until it says 
something that wil make a good PowerPoint presentation.

People looked at apples for a very long time and probably agreed about them 
until Newton came along and saw an apple differently.

As for studies, I have seen so may really bad ones that I have become quite 
cynical.

But you are a believer?  Say it ain't so.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm