Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[Michael Cross]

Parker is a make it up as he goes along Rube Goldberg 'researcher'. His methods should clue most people as to his lack of credibility. Most smart people can see somebody who starts with a premise he wants to prove and then ignores anything that conflicts with it. He then asks people to endure some pretty stretched, presumptuous bastardizations of the evidence to force his conclusions.

Which has what to do with the subject matter of this thread. Complete non-sequitur.

While I do not agree in general with the practice of slamming people here who post on other forums, in this case, Parker is a contributor (and wrote the foreward) to the above book praising Sean Murphy's work, so Doyle's remark is not merely a gratuitous sideswipe.

Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize to Albert.