I have read both his comments and the rebutal and find both of them to be devoid of much "hard data" and mostly opinion.
From philosophy of science: " a researchers must be able to distinguish between data and the writers opinion for example look for words that qualify statements such as: probably, mostly, could, most agree, could have been, should be,has been, etc.."
Just my 2 cents.
[This message has been edited by Thronacx, 12-04-2003]