> Passion and rationality are not mutually exclusive.
> In fact, I am very passionate about rationality.

And so you should be

>> How about softwood lumber?
>
> What, still smarting about losing that one on both the "personal
> debate" level and the "international trade" level?

Well, my only exchange with you about that was over there was a dispute or 
not.  I said there seemed to be one.  You insisted there wasn't, but the 
headlines for several years after still proclaimed there was/is.  What is 
your position now?

As for whether I care one way or another who wins or loses, it has nothing 
to do with me.  I'm not nationalistic, and I own no lumber interests.

>> Maybe you could check the definition of "troll" next time...
>
> I did, and you really should provide them with a better photo!  :)

I've never knowingly met you, so I couldn't take your picture.  I've heard 
descriptions, however, and had to provide a sketch based on them.  Sorry.

> So let me get this straight - You openly admit that you can't be
> bothered to even do your homework on the issue..

Not my homework, unless you can assign me homework, which I doubt.

> claim to have "no dog in the fight", issue an open challenge to all and 
> sundry

Well, all I asked was what it would take to disprove a specific hypothesis 
or bring some or any of it into doubt, since it seems that some defend it 
with more passion than any hypothesis should IMO deserve.  Was that a 
challenge?  Maybe to some.

> refuse to even READ cited peer-reviewed articles that meet the specific 
> criteria of your challenge,

How would you know?  Actually I have read quite a few.  Enough to know that 
I know nothing on the topic and wonder about many of those that think they 
do.

> and then presume to set yourself up as the ultimate arbitrator of 
> something or other, including the psychological make-up of those who have 
> done their homework, and therefore might have the sort of informed view 
> that you admit you lack?

Really?  Statements like that are why I have trouble relying on objectivity 
in anything you write.

> We don't need another "Karl Popper" or "Thomas Kuhn", as both
> have been so thoroughly discredited, even quoting them discredits
> the person doing so.  You don't want to end up like that.

Read my last statement and apply it to the preceding paragraph.  You might 
want to heed that same advice. 

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---