Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> And yet the Newscientist article fails to mention this basic Google 
>> search at all.  Suspicious... Newscientist or NewAgeScientist? :P
> 
> It wasn't a basic google search for me. It was someone else referring to 
> the same list, pointing to the *actual* paper about it, and then hitting 
> the citation cross-reference indexes to see what other scientists said 
> about it.

In any case, not quite what one would expect from a respectable science 
magazine...

Post a reply to this message