Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> That's silly. I simply said "I sure hope the
> EAEA publishes the details of its methodology,
> interpretation, and application of the required
> 13C correction to the age data" and you turn
> it into some kind of dark allegation. Of course
> I'm concerned, because the 2 previously published
> RCD studies that were approved and overseen by the
> SCA were loaded with methodological flaws. So yes,
> I have good reason to be concerned about this one
> too. And the time it's taking to get less than 100
> samples analyzed and coded only generates more
> cause for concern.
>
> Meanwhile, I didn't insult them, or jump to any
> conculsions about their results, nor did I engage
> in any character assassination or professional
> slur the way you did to Scott before his book was
> published.

?
Seems that you have jumped to some "conculsions"(sic)!

btw I share reservations about them too. But am not qualified or privy to full details to come to any stated conclusions.
>
> Do you or don't you agree that a detailed
> presentation of such methodology is a prerequisite
> to publishing such a technical study?

If you think you are qualified to make the above conclusive statement, then where is your presentation of your methodology?