Subject:  Defence (Ross)..
Date:     Wed, 02 Aug 2000 161751 -0500
From:     Roy Beavers 
To:       Roy Beavers 
--------------------------------------------------

..........Well ... I guess it depends on the meaning 
of what "is" ... "is"????.......guru......  (Somehow
th explanation below has a 'deja-vu' feel to it.....)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Defence
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:36:33 -0700
From: "Randy N Ross" 
To: "guru@emfguru.com" 

Robert I did not say that Roy Beavers is biased.  I
said that his list
contains biased information because he is censoring it.
That is totally
different and is not a  personal remark.  You must
distinguish between
the things that differ.  It was not insult, it is a
statement of fact.
Ask Roy yourself.

The other issue that I am being challenged on is my use
of the term
"evidence".  I do not use it in the everyday sense of
the word as some
of you do.  My understanding of the word is from my
scientific training
were evidence is evidence only when it is proven.  For
example, if
someone's experiment can only be done once in their own
lab, and not
repeated by them  or if no one else can repeat the
experiment and get
the same result then that is proof that the conclusion
drawn from only
the first experiment in their own lab is not reliable
and should not be
considered "evidence" with which to draw a conclusion. 
"Evidence" has
to be proven , i.e., experiment need replication,
before one can use
them to support health effects conclusions.  I don't
see  the "evidence"
as being reliable, therefore there is no proof (yet). 
I hope that helps
clarify some misunderstandings.


Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com