🚀 go-pugleaf

You seem to be missing the whole point.

Knowledge is judged on it's own value not on who presents it. The standard
editorial disclaimer in both Nexus and New Dawn is that the articles are
provided as an ALTERNATIVE to mainstream science/media.

Because money is tied up in mainstream science there is no scientific
honesty (there is some but ultimately things like ENERGY will answer to
needs of the TNC's).

If Nexus publishes an articled drawing on factual knowledge - no matter how
much it conflicts with accepted beliefs it still must be considered on its
OWN merits.

nos


"slinger" <slinger@bigpuddle.com> wrote in message
news:1fC97.22682$a04.78416@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Nice try but no banana.
> You cited a Nexus article that contains references to legitimate
publications.
> That is not what I asked, anyone can tack a list of references to an
article
> in order to mislead the reader.
>
> Now, please cite a Nexus article that has been verified by the scientific
community.
>
>
> nos wrote ...
> > what about this one?
> >
> > http://www.nexusmagazine.com/Osteoporosis.html
> >
> > nos
> >
> >
> > "slinger" wrote...
> > >
> > > I expected this ng to contain posts related to science.
> > > Nexus will never be classified as a scienctific publication.
> > > It is full of bullshit, please cite a single Nexus article that
> > > has been verified by the scientific community.
> > >
> > > nos wrote ...
> > > > how many days did that take to think up?
> > > >
> > > > nos
> > >
> > > None, I potsed the first day I looked at the aus.science ng.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "slinger" wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > nos  wrote
> > > > > > And New Dawn as well
> > > > > >
> > > > > > namaste
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nos
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it as stupid as Nexus ?
>
>
>