GO ahead... wrote:
Your words, Jim, remind me much of the Doctors vs. Naturopath (types) arguments.
Only if you subscribe to the plugging of ears when anything intellectual is discussed methodology.
Read the freakin' post again. Read the freakin' thread again. Note how numerous posters use basic scientific principals to point out the numerous flaws in the POSE explanation. Note how in response all that is provided are some variations on "I guess we'll have to disagree"; "what I said isn't really what POSE is"; "what it says on the POSE site isn't really what POSE is"; "scientific facts and principals have no relevance to POSE".
Your line of 'logic' here is virtually a mirror image of the reasoning of Creationists (or as they have tried to re-invent themselves, Intelligent Designers). Anything of proven science that contradicts their little vision of the world gets pooh-poohed since "that's not what it says in the bible" (or "that's not what Dr R says").
Nowhere do the IDers (or here, the POSERs) provide scientifically valid explanations of their beliefs or the facts and figures to back them up. Simply reverting to "I guess we'll have to disagree" is tantamount to admitting that one is a close-minded ignorant fool.
If you have a rational and understandable explanation for how POSE is more effective, efficient or faster than what folks like Geb, Bekele, Tergat or El G use, then by all means, bring it forth.
Your call, is your mind open or closed?