> I feel that the problem is that the sentence was missing two critical
words.  If written as follows, should solve Dean's issue:

One can certainly add a couple of words to just about any sentence and change its meaning significantly....but the issue is not "Dean's"...the issue is with the writing itself and what is stated by the authors.  Seems to me that once a study is reviewed and published that it is open to critique.

I did spend some time reading through the study last night, and I tend to agree with Peter and Randy that what was written in that sentence doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the study.

This passage is in the paper and was posted to Bee-L where I commented that it seemed off (Randy also seems to indicate that there is a problem).  Other posters seemed to feel that I was misinterpreting the passage.  This passage was not quoted out of context in any way that might change its meaning.....it states very clearly what it states.

It seems to me to be presumptuous to change the wording and meaning in a peer reviewed and published paper (that one didn't write) in order to make things fit better.

I pointed out something that didn't make sense.  It still doesn't make sense.  Perhaps it is a mere typo?

Instead of rewriting someone elses' paper, I went ahead and made a comment on the Plos ONE site....perhaps if others see an issue here they will do the same rather than assuming the responsibility of rewriting someone elses' peer reviewed study.

deknow

             ***********************************************
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