[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
>
>The only way this could have been correctly labeled a hoax on the part
>of the
>researchers is if the research itself had not been done, had not been
>done as
>reported, and/or had not yielded the results reported. There is no
>evidence
>that any of those "if" statements are true. Ergo, no hoax
>The only way it could -- even stretching the language to its limits
>and beyond
>-- be labeled a hoax on the part of the media is if they had made up
>the
>story, misquoted the researchers, misstated the methodology or
>misstated the
>results. There is no evidence that any of those statements are true
>either.
>IMO what we have here is an interesting and promising development that
>has
>unfortunately been reported in the popular media in such a way that
>those
>unfamiliar with research did not understand it. The very first
>reports we
>read and heard all had the "two years until human testing" caveat
>attached.
>I'm sure people missed that, and it's not surprising that they did.
>But it
>was there.
>Language has parameters; it is not infinitely elastic. And "hoax"
>means
>deliberately deluding.
>Doc
Hi Doc,
Thank you. I think you've summarized the truth of this issue exactly.
Bill
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
