On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:55:33 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sometimes too a detailed debunking may not even be needed. Such an approach tends to give them ammunation to engage in even more outrageous theorizing. Sometimes the best thing that you can say in opposition is that we have been unable to find any study of the subject in mainstream scientific publications.- period.
Exactly so. And the same should really apply to those parts of the theory which have not been published outside of the walled garden of its proponents.
Which gives you a short article saying that this theory is propounded by so-and-so but lacks the legitimacy of publication or discussion in any peer-reviewed sources.
Guy (JzG)