--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <lengli...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> wrote:
> [...]
> > Pardon me. You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some
> > studies and both have made similar arguments. So I was curious if you
> > were him. I am not a mind reader so I asked. I certainly meant no
> > insult and I inquired via pm in any event. I've tired of all of the
> > back and forth so I won't bother to ask you to outline what you found
> > silly about my arguments. However, the one thing that bugged me about
> > both you and Tim Guy was the assumption, contrary to what was said by
> > the authors, that evidence in the last 20 years was ignored. They
> > only reported what they found relevant but they read all the studies.
> >
>
> And you know this because,,,?
>
> ALthough, I'm told the authors are aware of the studies they
omitted, but they
> won't discuss them because they don't have a theoretical framework
to put
> them in and therefore they can't be of any value.
>
>
> Lawson
>
They said that they reviewed them. Who told you that they don't have
the theoretical framework?
