Reef Fish wrote:

> I did not reply to ANY of Lee's post (however wrong he was), and I
> did NOT even comment on posts by Strike and Huw who told Lee how
> wrong he was, but THIS one I have to post why Lee is up to his same
> old trick of
> >> > I find it interesting that you cast pearls of wisdom post wisdom and
> >others
> >> > spew forth myths and speculations.  I find it interesting that your
> >> > indication of what exercise may do, based on INSUFFICIENT and
> >INCONCLUSIVE
> >> > information that APPEARS to be a valid scientific study is neither
myth
> >nor
> >> > speculation.
>
>
> That's a complete TWIST and DISTORTION of what *I* posted, in my
> reply to Confucio (Giovanni):

Your complete statement was included in the message.  Only the highlighting
was changed.  Others may have chosen to extract what they found significant.
I can't help their choice.  If you had bothered to read what you are
complaining about, you might know that.  Obviously you didn't.

For the record, I didn't comment on your conclusions.  I commented on your
characterization of posts by others as myth and speculation in a post where
you, yourself indicated you data was insufficient and inconclusive.  As it
happens, I find your opinions and speculations to be generally worth
reading, but, when not founded in solid evidence, just as much, no less myth
or speculation than the opinion of others.

> Lee, if you're going to quote "Bob's words", QUOTE THEM.

I did.  Bob, if you're going to complain about one of my posts, read it
before you complain.

Lee