On 17-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, Michael Press <[email hidden]> blindly formulated the following incoherence:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Of course I meant it would end the conspiracy charges from reasonable people. Crazies will charge anything anytime, and they will always be around.
I think that clears it all up.
Not so fast, Chuckles; if you are going to include scurrilous attribution lines, include them all. Furthermore, you munged the quote levels. I will not clean up after you, as I am not domestic help.
Sorry. I thought I was among civilized men. My mistake. -- "The accused will now make a bogus statement." James Joyce
"steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On 17-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, "Sandy" <[email hidden]> blindly formulated the following incoherence:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> How are you going to end conspiracy charges, Pollyanna?
End them? Not a chance. My approach would make them less likely and less credible.
To help you understand, a "conspiracy" need not be allowed to culminate in a bad act. Did you get that?
No, I dont. Not in this context, anyway. Sure a conspiracy can fail or might never culminate in an act. Fine. So?
I really dont have a clue what you're getting at.
If the protocol is less prone to manipulation, fewer people will believe that positive results (and there will, no doubt, be fewer positive results) are the result of manipulation. So fewer people will charge conspiracy. The protocol will be more credible.
The science, however, is another issue.
Is it just me or are you two guys talking about different things? If I understand it correctly Sandy is saying that conspiracy to dope is the same as doping whereas you're talking about the testing process being open to charges of conspiracy.
Of course I meant it would end the conspiracy charges from reasonable people. Crazies will charge anything anytime, and they will always be around.
I think that clears it all up.
Not so fast, Chuckles; if you are going to include scurrilous attribution lines, include them all. Furthermore, you munged the quote levels. I will not clean up after you, as I am not domestic help.
Sorry. I thought I was among civilized men. My mistake.
On 17-May-2007, smacked up and reeling, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> blindly formulated the following incoherence:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
The science, however, is another issue.
Is it just me or are you two guys talking about different things? If I understand it correctly Sandy is saying that conspiracy to dope is the same as doping whereas you're talking about the testing process being open to charges of conspiracy.
That might explain things. -- "The accused will now make a bogus statement." James Joyce
