Re: Question to the group.

"Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <snip>
> > > > Really?  Where is the evidence to support your supposition that a
> > > landslide
> > > > had in fact occurred?  Suppositions don't count in geology, or in
any
> > > > science for that matter.  You should know this.
> > >
> > > On the contary. Entertaining hypothesis and considering all angles are
> the
> > > foundations of science. Only those who approach science as a religious
> > > belief fail to understand this, and they are usually poor scientists,
> > > limited to recycling old ideas.
> > >
> >
> > That's not what I meant.  What I was trying to say was you have to be
> > careful about speculative arguments when presenting published findings.
> Not
> > to do so could cause you to be fed to the wolves, so to speak.  Of
course
> > speculation has its place.  You just have to be careful when and where
and
> > with whom you conduct such speculation.
>
> And usenet is way to regulated and restrictive for open discussions, I
> gather?
>

You were suggesting that their magnitude numbers invalidated the research,
while I pointed out that they may be using conservative numbers for a
reason.