[ArrogantBustard]

Once again, he who purports to do the research is responsible for doing it right.

In my professional life, reviewing papers for publication is a necessary evil ... were I presented with one that includes the sort of half-assed incomplete data as presented in #331, I would simply reject it. It's not my job to do it right, merely to pass judgement on whether it was done right. In the case of #331 and following, my judgment is in the negative, and will be until I see a complete data set from the researcher.

[billhilly]

Well, here I am at post 413, and frankly, it has not been very humorous. It is more like a war between the sexless and the oversexed, if you are to believe the people doing the posting.

Frankly, I would advise them to all go to bed and think about it. These online print shops can be addictive.

[steve-b]

Oh, puh-leeze. You made an assertion; a batch of counter-examples were presented (even though a single counter-example suffices to dispose of a general assertion).

You remind me of a perpetual-motion-machine inventor complaining that the tests of his device are "incomplete" because another run (and another, and yet another) could still be conducted.