Until you pointed it out. I didn't realize plant nodes had peers.
Still awaiting facts or artifacts. Your talking in circles, creating long strings of words signifying nothing, hearsay inferences, and fuzzy photographs do not constitute facts.
How about a little more show and a lot less tell?
Until you pointed it out. I didn't realize plant nodes had peers.
Still awaiting facts or artifacts.
= = = =
Curious. My error, I guess. I was sure that what a scientific journal was--was understood.
I was even pretty sure it was understood that the fellow scientists reviewing submissions of articles to the scientific journals constituted the peer review process. Seemed like a pretty Junior High level of understanding to expect. Guess that's what I get for ASSUming a Jr High level of understanding.
By way of a helpful suggestion . . . I'm sure that there are online dictionaries that would have suitable definitions of "peer review."
- - - - - -
YOU demanded "HARD" facts. Very hard scientific facts were presented with proper references. You refuse to accept them. Then you deny them. Then you deny the denial.
Impressive.
- - - - -
You have been presented with scientifically researched and scientifically verified artifacts of an evidently non-human phenomenon--set of phenomena, actually. Evidently the data sets are too troublesome for you to wrap your construction on reality around.
I can leave you be. I don't really need to cause so much stress over a world view, construction on reality.
I just felt the lurkers and other readers deserved to see the bankruptcy of the position.