A pal of mine has a Walnut tree and we were talking about the prices for a
Black Walnut Tree. He had to cut off a branch and the internal wood was very
dark. Is that a characteristic of a Black Walnut Tree?

Anyway, I'm just curious what an Old Black Walnut Tree would go for these days.
I told him that a real good one could go for as much as $250,000.00. Is that
old news?

His tree is probably an American Walnut but if it's a Black Walnut what might a
Tree like that be worth these days?

Thanks,

Ronald

His tree is probably an American Walnut but if it's a Black Walnut what might
a
Tree like that be worth these days?


Nothing. Other than its asthetic value or value that can be placed on it for
insurance purposes, black walnuts in the landscape arent used for thier wood.
The main reason is that outside of thier natural environment, trees are subject
to homeowners who like to put nails and all sorts of wierd stuff into thier
trees, and prune them improperly(increasing wound sites that lead to decay).
They also do not acheive the necessary size in the landscape to produce the
veneer quality wood that is used for furniture and such.

Toad

Only the bottom 2 ft and the burl below ground would be worth anything. It
would have to have wild figure in the burl.
"Marley1372" wrote in message
...
His tree is probably an American Walnut but if it's a Black Walnut what
might
a
Tree like that be worth these days?


Nothing. Other than its asthetic value or value that can be placed on it
for
insurance purposes, black walnuts in the landscape arent used for thier
wood.
The main reason is that outside of thier natural environment, trees are
subject
to homeowners who like to put nails and all sorts of wierd stuff into
thier
trees, and prune them improperly(increasing wound sites that lead to
decay).
They also do not acheive the necessary size in the landscape to produce
the
veneer quality wood that is used for furniture and such.

Toad

You know, not to disagree too much, but as a woodworker I'll tell you right
now that there are those of us who will buy such trees, whether or not
they're in a yard. Additionally, the burl isn't what's underneath the
ground, a burl grows off the trunk, not at the juncture of the roots. The
roots do form unusual patterns, but that's not the burl.

Philip

"FOW" wrote in message
...
Only the bottom 2 ft and the burl below ground would be worth anything. It
would have to have wild figure in the burl.
"Marley1372" wrote in message
...
His tree is probably an American Walnut but if it's a Black Walnut what
might
a
Tree like that be worth these days?


Nothing. Other than its asthetic value or value that can be placed on
it
for
insurance purposes, black walnuts in the landscape arent used for thier
wood.
The main reason is that outside of thier natural environment, trees are
subject
to homeowners who like to put nails and all sorts of wierd stuff into
thier
trees, and prune them improperly(increasing wound sites that lead to
decay).
They also do not acheive the necessary size in the landscape to produce
the
veneer quality wood that is used for furniture and such.

Toad

Campbe4 wrote:
A pal of mine has a Walnut tree and we were talking about the prices for a
Black Walnut Tree. He had to cut off a branch and the internal wood was very
dark. Is that a characteristic of a Black Walnut Tree?

Yes.

Anyway, I'm just curious what an Old Black Walnut Tree would go for these days.
I told him that a real good one could go for as much as $250,000.00. Is that
old news?

That's sounds ridiculously high, but even if it is accurate, you probably
don't have a really good one.

His tree is probably an American Walnut but if it's a Black Walnut what might a
Tree like that be worth these days?

You should contact a local sawmill instead of strangers on Usenet (like me)
who will tell you the tree is worthless just to be assholes.

Good luck, and best regards, :-)
Bob

LOL! I'm in N. Cal as well, up in the Lake County area. Right now we have
vineyards bulldozing orchards of walnut trees and burning them. Can't get
them to sell it.

Philip
"FOW" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the info Phil I was wrong. I'm a WW also. Around here in N.
Cal.
they go out to the walnut groves and backhoe up the old walnut trees at
night aka -Steal them- . For the wood and sell it to the gunstock makes
here.
"Philip" wrote in message
news:Beopa.574620$L1.167943@sccrnsc02...
You know, not to disagree too much, but as a woodworker I'll tell you
right
now that there are those of us who will buy such trees, whether or not
they're in a yard. Additionally, the burl isn't what's underneath the
ground, a burl grows off the trunk, not at the juncture of the roots.
The
roots do form unusual patterns, but that's not the burl.

Philip

"FOW" wrote in message
...
Only the bottom 2 ft and the burl below ground would be worth
anything.
It
would have to have wild figure in the burl.
"Marley1372" wrote in message
...
His tree is probably an American Walnut but if it's a Black Walnut
what
might
a
Tree like that be worth these days?


Nothing. Other than its asthetic value or value that can be placed
on
it
for
insurance purposes, black walnuts in the landscape arent used for
thier
wood.
The main reason is that outside of thier natural environment, trees
are
subject
to homeowners who like to put nails and all sorts of wierd stuff
into
thier
trees, and prune them improperly(increasing wound sites that lead to
decay).
They also do not acheive the necessary size in the landscape to
produce
the
veneer quality wood that is used for furniture and such.

Toad

Ahh, but those are English, not black walnuts.

A good, old black walnut used to have value. not so much anymore.
dealers are leary of trees that may have (likely have) nails and such
embedded in the wood. But English walnuts (_Juglans regia_, the kind
you eat, and what makes up what's left of the Lake county walnut
orchards) are not nor have they ever been valued for timber. Now they
are less and less valued for nuts, espcially in a place like Lake
county where wine grapes are fetching terrific prices.






On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 01:33:55 GMT, "Philip" wrote:

|LOL! I'm in N. Cal as well, up in the Lake County area. Right now we have
|vineyards bulldozing orchards of walnut trees and burning them. Can't get
|them to sell it.
|
|Philip
|"FOW" wrote in message
...
| Thanks for the info Phil I was wrong. I'm a WW also. Around here in N.
|Cal.
| they go out to the walnut groves and backhoe up the old walnut trees at
| night aka -Steal them- . For the wood and sell it to the gunstock makes
| here.
| "Philip" wrote in message
| news:Beopa.574620$L1.167943@sccrnsc02...
| You know, not to disagree too much, but as a woodworker I'll tell you
| right
| now that there are those of us who will buy such trees, whether or not
| they're in a yard. Additionally, the burl isn't what's underneath the
| ground, a burl grows off the trunk, not at the juncture of the roots.
|The
| roots do form unusual patterns, but that's not the burl.
|
| Philip
|
| "FOW" wrote in message
| ...
| Only the bottom 2 ft and the burl below ground would be worth
|anything.
| It
| would have to have wild figure in the burl.
| "Marley1372" wrote in message
| ...
| His tree is probably an American Walnut but if it's a Black Walnut
| what
| might
| a
| Tree like that be worth these days?
|
|
| Nothing. Other than its asthetic value or value that can be placed
|on
| it
| for
| insurance purposes, black walnuts in the landscape arent used for
| thier
| wood.
| The main reason is that outside of thier natural environment, trees
| are
| subject
| to homeowners who like to put nails and all sorts of wierd stuff
|into
| thier
| trees, and prune them improperly(increasing wound sites that lead to
| decay).
| They also do not acheive the necessary size in the landscape to
| produce
| the
| veneer quality wood that is used for furniture and such.
|
| Toad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

I should add that we'd all be better off if we ate more walnuts. The
omega-3 oil they contain (same as oil from cold-water fishes) is one
protection against heart disease. Well and truly documented by solid
scientific studies here and abroad. Eat a handful a day; live until
something else kills you. Of course, drinking that Lake county wine is
proving to be beneficial too.



On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 03:32:23 GMT, x wrote:

|Ahh, but those are English, not black walnuts.
|
|A good, old black walnut used to have value. not so much anymore.
|dealers are leary of trees that may have (likely have) nails and such
|embedded in the wood. But English walnuts (_Juglans regia_, the kind
|you eat, and what makes up what's left of the Lake county walnut
|orchards) are not nor have they ever been valued for timber. Now they
|are less and less valued for nuts, espcially in a place like Lake
|county where wine grapes are fetching terrific prices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 01:33:55 GMT, "Philip" wrote:
|
||LOL! I'm in N. Cal as well, up in the Lake County area. Right now we have
||vineyards bulldozing orchards of walnut trees and burning them. Can't get
||them to sell it.
||
||Philip
||"FOW" wrote in message
...
|| Thanks for the info Phil I was wrong. I'm a WW also. Around here in N.
||Cal.
|| they go out to the walnut groves and backhoe up the old walnut trees at
|| night aka -Steal them- . For the wood and sell it to the gunstock makes
|| here.
|| "Philip" wrote in message
|| news:Beopa.574620$L1.167943@sccrnsc02...
|| You know, not to disagree too much, but as a woodworker I'll tell you
|| right
|| now that there are those of us who will buy such trees, whether or not
|| they're in a yard. Additionally, the burl isn't what's underneath the
|| ground, a burl grows off the trunk, not at the juncture of the roots.
||The
|| roots do form unusual patterns, but that's not the burl.
||
|| Philip
||
|| "FOW" wrote in message
|| ...
|| Only the bottom 2 ft and the burl below ground would be worth
||anything.
|| It
|| would have to have wild figure in the burl.
|| "Marley1372" wrote in message
|| ...
|| His tree is probably an American Walnut but if it's a Black Walnut
|| what
|| might
|| a
|| Tree like that be worth these days?
||
||
|| Nothing. Other than its asthetic value or value that can be placed
||on
|| it
|| for
|| insurance purposes, black walnuts in the landscape arent used for
|| thier
|| wood.
|| The main reason is that outside of thier natural environment, trees
|| are
|| subject
|| to homeowners who like to put nails and all sorts of wierd stuff
||into
|| thier
|| trees, and prune them improperly(increasing wound sites that lead to
|| decay).
|| They also do not acheive the necessary size in the landscape to
|| produce
|| the
|| veneer quality wood that is used for furniture and such.
||
|| Toad
||
||
||
||
||
||
||

LOL.. this is the example I use for my students when talking about how who is paying
creates a bias in science.
this is the example cause the "study" was funded by the walnut growers of
california".
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~bchem280/omega.html
Ingrid


x wrote:
I should add that we'd all be better off if we ate more walnuts. The
omega-3 oil they contain (same as oil from cold-water fishes) is one
protection against heart disease. Well and truly documented by solid
scientific studies here and abroad. Eat a handful a day; live until
something else kills you. Of course, drinking that Lake county wine is
proving to be beneficial too.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

Sorry Dr. Solo, but that's a cheap shot. I wouldn't comment except you
say you are actually responsible for teaching students. Sorry state of
affairs when someone at your level of ignorance is entrusted with that
responsibility.

Can you take issue with the methodology, the data, the results? If
not, what difference does it make who's funding the research.

Every working scientist knows that research that doesn't get funded
doesn't get done. There is a clear health benefit to omega 3 oils. We
know that from reams of scientific data. Walnuts are fairly high in
omega 3 oils. One can logically conclude that there is a health
benefit to eating walnuts. So, should we leave it there OR should we
do the experiment and demonstrate it scientifically.

Doing the experiment is how science works. Can we agree on that? If
there is a benefit to, for example, the walnut growers of California,
then why not fund the research that is based on valid scientific
hypothesis. It's not like a bunch of walnut farmers did the research,
as your assinine comments imply. Reputable scientists in the US and
abroad conducted multiple studies all leading to the same conclusion.

Attack the study, the methodology, the data, the results or the
interpretation of those results. If you have legitimate cause to doubt
any of those, put it out there. That's how science works. But some
cheap shot about who may or may not have funded the research is an
absurd comment. That's not science; it's stupidity.

I hope your students have a chance to study with real scientists who
can undo whatever damage your nonsense has done. With teachers like
you on the loose it's no wonder we have a president who doesn't accept
evolution.




On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:18:43 GMT, wrote:

|LOL.. this is the example I use for my students when talking about how who is paying
|creates a bias in science.
|this is the example cause the "study" was funded by the walnut growers of
|california".
|http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~bchem280/omega.html
|Ingrid
|
|
wrote:
|I should add that we'd all be better off if we ate more walnuts. The
|omega-3 oil they contain (same as oil from cold-water fishes) is one
|protection against heart disease. Well and truly documented by solid
|scientific studies here and abroad. Eat a handful a day; live until
|something else kills you. Of course, drinking that Lake county wine is
|proving to be beneficial too.
|
|
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
|http://puregold.aquaria.net/
|www.drsolo.com
|Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
|compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
|endorsements or recommendations I make.

What do they call someone from Lake County, with a full set of teeth?
A tourist ! Speed freak central !
"Philip" wrote in message
news:7aHpa.590885$L1.170016@sccrnsc02...
LOL! I'm in N. Cal as well, up in the Lake County area. Right now we
have
vineyards bulldozing orchards of walnut trees and burning them. Can't get
them to sell it.

Philip
"FOW" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the info Phil I was wrong. I'm a WW also. Around here in N.
Cal.
they go out to the walnut groves and backhoe up the old walnut trees at
night aka -Steal them- . For the wood and sell it to the gunstock makes
here.
"Philip" wrote in message
news:Beopa.574620$L1.167943@sccrnsc02...
You know, not to disagree too much, but as a woodworker I'll tell you
right
now that there are those of us who will buy such trees, whether or not
they're in a yard. Additionally, the burl isn't what's underneath the
ground, a burl grows off the trunk, not at the juncture of the roots.
The
roots do form unusual patterns, but that's not the burl.

Philip

"FOW" wrote in message
...
Only the bottom 2 ft and the burl below ground would be worth
anything.
It
would have to have wild figure in the burl.
"Marley1372" wrote in message
...
His tree is probably an American Walnut but if it's a Black
Walnut
what
might
a
Tree like that be worth these days?


Nothing. Other than its asthetic value or value that can be
placed
on
it
for
insurance purposes, black walnuts in the landscape arent used for
thier
wood.
The main reason is that outside of thier natural environment,
trees
are
subject
to homeowners who like to put nails and all sorts of wierd stuff
into
thier
trees, and prune them improperly(increasing wound sites that lead
to
decay).
They also do not acheive the necessary size in the landscape to
produce
the
veneer quality wood that is used for furniture and such.

Toad

Black Walnut = Juglans Nigra. Most Walnut orchards have a Black walnut
rootstock and a English walnut graft
wrote in message
news
Sorry Dr. Solo, but that's a cheap shot. I wouldn't comment except you
say you are actually responsible for teaching students. Sorry state of
affairs when someone at your level of ignorance is entrusted with that
responsibility.

Can you take issue with the methodology, the data, the results? If
not, what difference does it make who's funding the research.

Every working scientist knows that research that doesn't get funded
doesn't get done. There is a clear health benefit to omega 3 oils. We
know that from reams of scientific data. Walnuts are fairly high in
omega 3 oils. One can logically conclude that there is a health
benefit to eating walnuts. So, should we leave it there OR should we
do the experiment and demonstrate it scientifically.

Doing the experiment is how science works. Can we agree on that? If
there is a benefit to, for example, the walnut growers of California,
then why not fund the research that is based on valid scientific
hypothesis. It's not like a bunch of walnut farmers did the research,
as your assinine comments imply. Reputable scientists in the US and
abroad conducted multiple studies all leading to the same conclusion.

Attack the study, the methodology, the data, the results or the
interpretation of those results. If you have legitimate cause to doubt
any of those, put it out there. That's how science works. But some
cheap shot about who may or may not have funded the research is an
absurd comment. That's not science; it's stupidity.

I hope your students have a chance to study with real scientists who
can undo whatever damage your nonsense has done. With teachers like
you on the loose it's no wonder we have a president who doesn't accept
evolution.




On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:18:43 GMT, wrote:

|LOL.. this is the example I use for my students when talking about how
who is paying
|creates a bias in science.
|this is the example cause the "study" was funded by the walnut growers of
|california".
|http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~bchem280/omega.html
|Ingrid
|
|
wrote:
|I should add that we'd all be better off if we ate more walnuts. The
|omega-3 oil they contain (same as oil from cold-water fishes) is one
|protection against heart disease. Well and truly documented by solid
|scientific studies here and abroad. Eat a handful a day; live until
|something else kills you. Of course, drinking that Lake county wine is
|proving to be beneficial too.
|
|
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
|http://puregold.aquaria.net/
|www.drsolo.com
|Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
|compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
|endorsements or recommendations I make.

gustavo, it ALWAYS makes a difference who is funding the research. Good
science starts with a genuine question - bad science starts with a premise
that someone "wants' the data to prove - hence the danger that somewhere
within that process, data will be altered or non-supportive data deleted.
It's not that these studies will come up with wrong answers - much of the
time, they will probably be on the right track. But a skeptical person will
always want to double check the data that comes from a study paid for by a
group looking for a particular result.
Just this week, the Sugar Council of American tried to put pressure on
the US to withdraw funding from the World Health Organization because one of
WHO's most recent studies was atrributing the rapid increase in obesity
around the globe to the fact that peoples' diets now include a very large
percentage of sugar calories. The study found that 10% of calories from
sugar is ok, but more than that starts to increase the danger of obesity.
The sugar council says, "oh no, OUR research proves that a diet with 30%-40%
from sugar calories is perfectly healthy". Well, I know which of those two
studies I'm likely to trust......even without looking at the
methodology.....
wrote in message
news
Sorry Dr. Solo, but that's a cheap shot. I wouldn't comment except you
say you are actually responsible for teaching students. Sorry state of
affairs when someone at your level of ignorance is entrusted with that
responsibility.

Can you take issue with the methodology, the data, the results? If
not, what difference does it make who's funding the research.

Every working scientist knows that research that doesn't get funded
doesn't get done. There is a clear health benefit to omega 3 oils. We
know that from reams of scientific data. Walnuts are fairly high in
omega 3 oils. One can logically conclude that there is a health
benefit to eating walnuts. So, should we leave it there OR should we
do the experiment and demonstrate it scientifically.

Doing the experiment is how science works. Can we agree on that? If
there is a benefit to, for example, the walnut growers of California,
then why not fund the research that is based on valid scientific
hypothesis. It's not like a bunch of walnut farmers did the research,
as your assinine comments imply. Reputable scientists in the US and
abroad conducted multiple studies all leading to the same conclusion.

Attack the study, the methodology, the data, the results or the
interpretation of those results. If you have legitimate cause to doubt
any of those, put it out there. That's how science works. But some
cheap shot about who may or may not have funded the research is an
absurd comment. That's not science; it's stupidity.

I hope your students have a chance to study with real scientists who
can undo whatever damage your nonsense has done. With teachers like
you on the loose it's no wonder we have a president who doesn't accept
evolution.




On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:18:43 GMT, wrote:

|LOL.. this is the example I use for my students when talking about how
who is paying
|creates a bias in science.
|this is the example cause the "study" was funded by the walnut growers of
|california".
|http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~bchem280/omega.html
|Ingrid
|
|
wrote:
|I should add that we'd all be better off if we ate more walnuts. The
|omega-3 oil they contain (same as oil from cold-water fishes) is one
|protection against heart disease. Well and truly documented by solid
|scientific studies here and abroad. Eat a handful a day; live until
|something else kills you. Of course, drinking that Lake county wine is
|proving to be beneficial too.
|
|
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
|http://puregold.aquaria.net/
|www.drsolo.com
|Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
|compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
|endorsements or recommendations I make.

gregpresley wrote:

gustavo, it ALWAYS makes a difference who is funding the research. Good
science starts with a genuine question - bad science starts with a
premise that someone "wants' the data to prove - hence the danger that
somewhere
within that process, data will be altered or non-supportive data deleted.
It's not that these studies will come up with wrong answers - much of the
time, they will probably be on the right track. But a skeptical person
will always want to double check the data that comes from a study paid for
by a group looking for a particular result.
Just this week, the Sugar Council of American tried to put pressure
on
the US to withdraw funding from the World Health Organization because one
of WHO's most recent studies was atrributing the rapid increase in obesity
around the globe to the fact that peoples' diets now include a very large
percentage of sugar calories. The study found that 10% of calories from
sugar is ok, but more than that starts to increase the danger of obesity.
The sugar council says, "oh no, OUR research proves that a diet with
30%-40% from sugar calories is perfectly healthy". Well, I know which of
those two studies I'm likely to trust......even without looking at the
methodology.....
wrote in message
news
Sorry Dr. Solo, but that's a cheap shot. I wouldn't comment except you
say you are actually responsible for teaching students. Sorry state of
affairs when someone at your level of ignorance is entrusted with that
responsibility.

Can you take issue with the methodology, the data, the results? If
not, what difference does it make who's funding the research.

Every working scientist knows that research that doesn't get funded
doesn't get done. There is a clear health benefit to omega 3 oils. We
know that from reams of scientific data. Walnuts are fairly high in
omega 3 oils. One can logically conclude that there is a health
benefit to eating walnuts. So, should we leave it there OR should we
do the experiment and demonstrate it scientifically.

Doing the experiment is how science works. Can we agree on that? If
there is a benefit to, for example, the walnut growers of California,
then why not fund the research that is based on valid scientific
hypothesis. It's not like a bunch of walnut farmers did the research,
as your assinine comments imply. Reputable scientists in the US and
abroad conducted multiple studies all leading to the same conclusion.

Attack the study, the methodology, the data, the results or the
interpretation of those results. If you have legitimate cause to doubt
any of those, put it out there. That's how science works. But some
cheap shot about who may or may not have funded the research is an
absurd comment. That's not science; it's stupidity.

I hope your students have a chance to study with real scientists who
can undo whatever damage your nonsense has done. With teachers like
you on the loose it's no wonder we have a president who doesn't accept
evolution.




On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:18:43 GMT, wrote:

|LOL.. this is the example I use for my students when talking about how
who is paying
|creates a bias in science.
|this is the example cause the "study" was funded by the walnut growers
|of california".
|http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~bchem280/omega.html
|Ingrid
|
|
wrote:
|I should add that we'd all be better off if we ate more walnuts. The
|omega-3 oil they contain (same as oil from cold-water fishes) is one
|protection against heart disease. Well and truly documented by solid
|scientific studies here and abroad. Eat a handful a day; live until
|something else kills you. Of course, drinking that Lake county wine is
|proving to be beneficial too.
|
|
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
|http://puregold.aquaria.net/
|www.drsolo.com
|Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
|compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
|endorsements or recommendations I make.


A case in point is the famous Framingham study which studied cholesterol and
heart disease. The study indicated there is no correlation and yet
pharmacutical companies have taken bits and pieces out of the study and
ignored other data and concluded there was a link. Of course, they are
making tons of money convincing the public there is a link and making
cholesterol lowering drugs.

I teach my students to look for various kinds of bias including in funding and to
rank just how prestigious and WELL refereed the journal is that the study is
published in. Then it is up to my students to decide for themselves just how much
they want to believe the results of the study.
http://users.megapathdsl.net/~solo/w..._fall2002.html see the first
section on bias

What you write is a personal attack on me as defense of the study.
http://users.megapathdsl.net/~solo/w...l_attacks.html
Feelings. Nobody can argue about how one "feels". Beliefs. What a person "believes"
cannot be debated since they are not facts, but beliefs. Debating with people who are
not willing to discuss anything but how they FEEL is pointless.
- However, people can discuss and debate facts. - Facts can be true or false, can be
misinterpreted, misquoted, misunderstood or incomplete. That is the point of
discussion and debates, to clarify and understand what the facts are.
The discussion and debate of facts can become derailed. One or both persons may feel
their beliefs are being assaulted. Then the discussion degenerates into a personal
attack.

HOW TO DETERMINE THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK IS OCCURRING
1. A personal attack or assault is not a discussion of facts. It begins with
the attacker clearly identifying the person being attacked either by name or by the
use of "you" repeatedly
2. The attack is full of emotional words, feelings, beliefs and opinions, but few
facts.
3. The attacker typically proposes or insinuates elaborate motives (often
conspiracies) for behavior that has no basis in fact. Ascribing motives to another
person is, of course, unknowable. Motives are negative for the most part.
4. Name calling and character assassination is typical.
5. The attacker will often refer to "unidentified others" who share their beliefs and
"know what they know".
6. The attack is most often public to be effective.

x wrote:
Sorry Dr. Solo,
..... #1
cheap shot.
Sorry state of affairs
ignorance
assinine comments
it's stupidity.
your nonsense
..... #2, #4

Every working scientist knows
We know
should we leave
..... #5



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.