stoutman wrote:

Clarke, what literature was reviewed? If you claim the documentation to
be authored by someone who "used a review of the literature" than show me
the
literature was used?

He does not say what specific literature was used.

The author made NO citations to the literature. I
would like to read it.

Then call the agency and talk to the guy who wrote the page if it's _that_
important to you.

No references were cited, but yet you claim (your OPINION by the way) that
the documentation was written by somebody who used a review of the
literature".

Yes, my opinion that he used a literature survey. If you want to believe
otherwise, feel free.

Because he mentions far more that ONE or even TWO (why do you feel it
necessary to SHOUT by the way?) studies.

He mentions studies? Or does he provide information from studies?

There are fourteen separate mentions of "study" or "studies".

Where in the "literature" do these studies come from?

Some publication or other.

And why do you
assume they come from the literature?

Where else would they come from?

He mentions various studies, therefore they must have come from the
literature. Ok, if you say so Clarke. For all you know the studies were
done by unqualified graduate students and the data was NEVER published,
therefore NOT IN THE LITERATURE.

If they were never published and NOT IN THE LITERATURE then how did some
bureaucrat writing a web page for the Canadian government happen to come
across them?

Clarke, do not respond to this post until you can provide me with support
that any of the studies in that document are from the literature.
Otherwise, you are wasting my time.

No, you are wasting your time. If you are too busy to participate in this
discussion then go do whatever you consider to be more important.

Mentioning various studies does not equal "he used a review of the
literature".

So how did he find them?

Stop with the straw man comments and come back with some real support for
your argument.

When you stop introducing straw men then I will stop pointing them out.

Note carefully that he starts out by mentioning "_animal_ and limited
human
information". Then he mentions one experiment in which acetone was
applied
to the skin of human volunteers. From this you conclude that that
particular experiment was ALL of the "limited human information". On
what
basis do you conclude this? Do you also conclude that that was the sum
total of _all_ of the "animal information", which he does _not_ claim is
"limited"?

I am not interested in animal data. It can be misleading. Why are you
harping on the animal data?

I should not have to explain things in this degree of detail to a person
whose IQ is sufficient to allow him to obtain a PhD. But I will
nonetheless give it another shot. This is becoming rather tedious by the
way.

He states that there was limited human research, then mentions a specific
study with 6 volunteers. From this you conclude that there was _no_ other
human research. By that reasoning, since he did not provide details of any
of the animal research, there must not have been any. You're the one
jumping to conclusions here and I'm trying to point out to you that you are
doing so. If you can't follow that line of reasoning then God help you.

If one uses the CRC Handbook to write it how do you know a CRC
handbook was used?

Depends on what specifically he was doing. It's called "reading between
the
lines", a skill that you might want to attempt to learn.

You can tell if someone uses a CRC handbook to write a document? Ok. You
are really talented. Talk about "beating your chest".

I did not say that I could do so infallibly, but it is possible to do so in
some cases.

More adequate than YOUR opinion, which, it is becoming more and more
clear,
is that of someone who has difficulty interpreting what he reads.

Here you are clearly stating YOUR OPINION. By the way (talk about having
a blind spot), I NEVER GAVE MY OPINION as to the toxicity of acetone.

Only if we accept your claim that your statement of opinion was in fact not
an opinion is that true.

By not calling out a reference for every statement he takes from the
literature of course.

Show me EVIDENCE that he used the literature. You are the only one that
claims that literature was used.

Tell me where else he would find at least 14 studies, some of which use
hundreds of human subjects.

Until you can provide me with the above request I am finished here.

Hope springs eternal.

I
will
let you have the last word.

Didn't you say that about 20 posts back?

I'm sure it will be something along these
lines:

"He mentions studies therefore he used a review of the literature. Or
a study with 6-people is more than adequate or
You have a blind spot or
straw man or
you can't read or
na nany boo boo."

Really hurts that you can't bull**** me or intimidate me or force me to
accept your redefinition of the English language, doesn't it professor.
Although I'm feeling remorse now because I'm sure you're going to take your
frustration out on some hapless victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hstudent.

Later Clarke

That's odd, I thought you said that this was your last post to me. Can't
even keep your story straight for ten lines.

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