Russell McMahon wrote:

>>> So far, yes.
>>
>> And not likely to change anytime soon  :)
> 
> I found that entirely clear and reasonable in the context.

In a way, yes, and in a way, no. In any case, it is not more than an
unsubstantiated opinion, in the context. (And one I suspect neither me nor
you nor Tony know enough to be able to reasonably have.)

> I didn't feel it had to be able to be shoe horned into 'precisely 
> scientific' or any other formal description. 

It was written in a context judging others' opinions, and Tony seemed to
try to position himself on the side of sound science, whereas he seemed to
portray the others on the side of "nuts and no volts". Which changes a bit
once it's clear that this is all about gut and not science, no?

> It was the sort of thing that somebody might say with a smile as they
> raised their glass to take a drink at the end of an exchange of
> opinions. 

Exactly. This is sort of what I tried to express: it's this sort of thing,
and not science. But there was a lot of resistance to this... why? It seems
some seemed to have an urge to counter that it, indeed, was science.

> but I really don't know (really) why it was worth more than, at best, a
> return " :-) ".

I felt the same about my message. This surprised me, too. Aside all the
boredom, there seemed to have been a need for discussion.


(People may say they think a thread is tedious or unnecessary, but as long
as they participate I assume that there's /something/ that keeps their
attention and makes them feel there's something that needs to be said.)

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist