Slim writes:
Would you please post your correspondence with him on the Talk page, as you indicated you would, so that other editors can judge whether he was evasive in response to your enquiry? Your claims about Mitchell Bard as a source have implications for a number of Wikipedia articles in which he is quoted.
This makes no sense. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should consider sources as unreliable if one of our thousands of anonymous editors doesn't get instant gratification from a writer and scholar that they have never met? There are hundreds of respected researchers out there who do not waste their time answering e-mails from the millions of people on the Internet.
Having mommy buy you a computer and pay for your AOL account does not make you a colleague of any academic or writer, and does not mean that they have to answer you correspondance.
Every week on the Phyics and Chemistry Usenet newsgroups we have people (kooks, really) claim that mainstream chemistry and physics is wrong. Their proof? They sent their own letters, questions and theories to leading scientists, and the scientists did not respond.
Is this really proof that we shouldn't trust these sources? No, it is only proof that writers and researchers don't answer every demand they get from people with an AOL account.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail