Re: Poor science - @Dr Mouse
I was referring to the headline to the post - "Poor science". Headline produced on no evidence whatsoever. There is a big difference between something not being proof [let's bot get too far into what that means], and calling it "poor science". Working at the absolute limits of current detection may be many things, but poor science it is definitely not. Would you have given your post that title?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
