In article <4998077d-bbde-4c6d-aa40-c77d4a840724@k12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, 
thedraperfamily@gmail.com says...
> On Sep 13, 12:19 pm, Byron Forbes <chocol...@caramel.com.au> wrote:
>> In article <ab0f5cde-41c1-4a97-8bc6-e66a9dd94...@v13g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
 thedraperfam...@gmail.com says...
>>> On Sep 12, 10:43 am, Byron Forbes <chocol...@caramel.com.au> wrote:
>>>> In article <j4h8bm$9s...@speranza.aioe.org>, thedraperfam...@gmail.com says...

[snip]
 
>>>>> You're beginning to sound a lot like "Henry Wilson" who repeatedly asks
>>>>> for lists of experiments, gets a list and never reads about them, and
>>>>> then feins ignorance of any such experiments.
>> 
>>>> Your beginning to sound like someone who always says "awe, they done a 
>>>> 'sperrament" and never provides any details, making the entire post 
>>>> worthless.
>> 
>>> What details do you need? Notice that you have been given specific
>>> references, with authors, titles, journal volume and issue, and page
>>> numbers. Normally in science, that is considered sufficient detail for
>>> the interested to fetch the material and to read it. But it appears
>>> that you prefer to have your meat cut up for you. Regardless of what
>>> you prefer, learning to cut your own meet is a basic skill for grown-
>>> ups, and I hope that you can develop that skill.
>> 
>>> Whether YOU consider a post worthless because it doesn't contain cut-
>>> up meat is not really a compelling dare, you see.
>> 
>> If it's not on the web it's bullshit.
>> 
>> If it was of significance it would be on the web somewhere.
> 
> It is on the web. It's just not FREE on the web.
> Now please, please, please tell me that if it's not free on the web,
> then it's bullshit. I would so love for you to try to tell me that.
> 

Done.