On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
I'd like to know, actually, WHY you depend on Quackwatch for ANY arguments. Barrett, the head of quackwatch, has lost repeatedly in court in recent years, and his claims are specious up and down the line -- not only about Null, but about others as well.
If you're going to argue against something Null says, at least get it right and do your own homework. Warning: Don't rely on Quackwatch, 'cause Barrett is shown to be the biggest quack in the pond.
At 12:40 AM 8/22/2008, you wrote: