stoutman wrote:

Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?


Ok, I'm surrounded by lostness.?.?.? Only when I read YOUR responses.


There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
makes you think he used a review of the literature?

The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.


Mentioning a number of cases (from an UNKNOWN SOURCE) = he used a review
of
the literature. Ok, If you say so.

If I were to write a document and used a "review of the literature" I
think I would at least CITE the review articles that I used in doing so.

And what if your boss decided that the citations were irrelevant for the
targeted audience and told you not to waste space on them?

So from whence did he find his numerous cases?

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. We don't know where he got the "case
reports" from do we? That's what I mean by: NO REFERENCES ARE CITED.

Again, this is not a review of the literature.

Straw man. You are the only one claiming that it was a review of the
literature.

We have NO evidence that
he
used a review of the literature. We don't even know what literature these
"case reports" came from. Do you?

Some body of literature that he or someone must have surveyed in order to
find them.

What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I
see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.

Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then "one
case report"

Mentioning case reports from an unknown source is not the same as
referencing the literature.

Another straw man. Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the literature"
except you.

A reference from the literature would contain
a
REFERENCE. Do you know what a reference is? It would contain the source
of
the literature that was used to write the document. It would contain the
journal, authors, publication source, volume, issue, pages, date, etc.
Have you ever read a scientific publication?

Fine, you know what a "reference from the literature is". So do I. Nobody
has claimed that that web page was "a reference from the literature", only
that someone who prepared it _used_ the literature.

You crack me up sir.

Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are numbers
associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers
dealing with larger populations than just you.

Ok, lets exaggerate a little. My observations are not vague
recollections. I use and I am around people that use acetone EVERY DAY I
go to work. Nobody had any adverse effects again today from using acetone
(FYI).

So to how much acetone were they exposed? For how long? In what
concentration? How many subjects were involved? What methodology did you
use to determine that there were no "adverse effects"? What would you
consider to be an "adverse effect"?

Many researchers? How many? If you think it's many than you must know
how
many. Come on man spill the beans man. How many?

I do not have to know an exact number to place a lower bound. Count up the
number of different studies mentioned by the author and that will put a
lower bound on it.

Larger populations? 6-male volunteers = large population. I hate to see
what a small population is to you. When you throw a party and 2-people
show up (I wouldn't expect any more than that) I guess you would consider
that a
LARGE party. I am surrounded by DOZENS using acetone, it is not just
me.

Again you are taking one statement out of context and asserting that that
was the totality of the research.

Still, 6, observed, with some description of the methodology and the
observed results, is more than you have presented.

They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".

They are reporting the observations of WHO? You said many others. Name
just ONE. Who are these mystery people you call "OTHERS"? A Reference to
the literature would be nice wouldn't it?

The many others who wrote the various results that were mentioned. I don't
_care_ specifically _who_ in this context.

You trust the author of a document regarding the safety of acetone when
(A.) You don't know where the information came from (I am referring to
LITERATURE here) and (B.) A study that uses an inadequate number of
volunteers (THEY EVEN STATE THAT THE STUDY WAS BASED ON LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION).

You have no idea how many "volunteers" were used. They mentioned some
studies that had hundreds of subjects. You are again focussing on one
result and ignoring the rest of the document.

Ok, sure. Trust away.

I shall.

I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your
intepretation
of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".

Whatever. How about focusing on this discussion instead of personally
attacking me?

How about you actually reading the entire document in question and finding
something to criticize other than "ENTHEOLOGY web page" and "6 volunteers"?

If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are responding
then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.

Why should I do you any favors?

I am not asking you for favors, I am asking you to behave in a socially
responsible manner.

Please do yourself a favor and educate your self as to what it means to
use the literature to write a scientific manuscript.

Another straw man. The page in question is clearly not intended to be a
"scientific manuscript" in the sense that you mean.

Read a few scientific review articles. See how many actually CITE the
literature.

What difference does that make to the topic at hand?

So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make the
report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.

You wrote that he used a "review of the literature" to write the document.

Are you suggesting that he used a review of the literature to write a
document that does not contain a review of the literature?

No, I am not suggesting that. I am stating it. If one uses a typewriter to
write a document that does not mean that the document contains a
typewriter. If one uses a dictionary to write it that does not mean that
it contains a dictionary. If one uses a style manual to write it that does
not mean that it contains a style manual. If one uses the CRC Handbook to
write it that does not mean that it contains the CRC handbook. If one uses
a literature survey to write it that does not mean that it contains a
literature survey.

Sir this horse is dead. Must I keep beating it?

The only thing I see you beating is straw men and your own chest.

and again a duplicate post was snipped

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)