Sorry yeah it's very late here and I missed the cannot bit you keep sliding them in, I actually avoid using the term cannot that is a really hard test condition in science which sort of topically was the source of a really weird discussion with Bill.

If you look at my answer I only talked about the does not part and ignored the cannot bit in my justification for accepting that. So you are correct I wouldn't accept that statement unless you remove the cannot bit sorry for the confusion.

Hey at least that means you understand my logic enough to even pick up my own errors now ... I am a horribly logical animal smile

So now you should be able to predict my answers to all your questions ahead of time laugh

Am I correct in saying however you were seeking some sort of ultimate answer to that question which the way I do science just is never going to be able to get a valid setup on to answer? I hate the term never as well but you know what I mean.

You would also understand that if that was your intention and I was a science moderator why the thread would be closed unless you could proved a valid test mechanism because it probably isn't a valid science question for a science forum. I suspect if you try this question on heavily moderated science forums that would be what happens have you ever done so?

Last edited by Orac; 02/06/14 02:18 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.