SSX :About writing up an exhaustive article:

[ShadowJack]

I question BDC. I question Par. I question Pat Arnold and Bill Llewellyn.

I question everybody when they say something controversial. Why? Because I want to see them explain themselves, and provide evidence for what they're saying. Otherwise, how can you truly believe what they're saying? Would you simply go on faith? I should hope not.

Savage, good point. I should have clarified a little better. I haven't openly questioned Chemo (on any of the boards) regarding his knowledge of *skin lotion* technology. Nor have I with Par. The reason is I have read every one of the threads on bb.com regarding homebrew, I have read nearly every one of Par's posts, as well as all of Par's articles.

Those two threads that Curt linked you to, regarding homebrew; yep, I've read those too, including (most of) the articles and studies that are linked to in those two threads.

So, for my purposes, they both have knowledge on the subject. They have both already shown that to me, so I don't see the need to question either of them further. Now, if one of them were to say (for example) that they have a new ingredient that will double the absorption rate of their product, without having any scientific evidence to explain it, then I would see a need to question something like that.

 

[K (Phoenix)]

Bill is the nicest gentleman among all.

What debate? We all know how Pat, Par dante and 1fast debate when they are cornered or coming short on reason.  Give me a break!

 

[1Fast400]

Bill is the nicest gentleman among all.

I assume you've had encounters with him personally that make you come to this opinion?

What debate? We all know how Pat, Par dante and 1fast debate when they are cornered or coming short on reason.

Riiiiiiiggghhhtt.