<I didn't trash their paper at all Robert. In fact, I didn't even mention it, I mentioned merely that they support Hoagland,

Barry, Barry, Barry, I'm insulted by the implication that I and everyone else can't follow the three links in your guilt-by-association chain: 1a) MS papers; 1b) the URL to Palermo's Web pages; 2) Hoagland; 3) anomalism.

What's the significance of England & Palermo's supposed support of Hoagland if not to tarnish their paper on "seeps" by that association?

In fact, I believe the policy of this board is to exclude anomalists but yet not their supporters?

Wrong, and considering that it was only a week or so ago that we had that flap about the deletion of your posts, I'm surprised you've forgotten. Justin deleted your posts because he mistakenly thought you're an anomalist. He issued an apology and we encouraged you to post here, not because of the mistaken categorization, but because the incident served to focus the policy. It's not (with a few deserved exceptions) people who are unwelcome here, it's the subject of psuedoscience and the particular branch of anomalism. You're a direct beneficiary of the newly-refined understanding of the distinction between psuedoscience and amateur science, and now you want to blur that distinction again?

These are all things the Mars Society attack dogs have been punishing people postingat at MSNBC for years. I wanted to show how hypocritical they are.

By doing the same thing? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite too?

Ya know Barry, at one time or another we've all started threads we later came to regret, but couldn't figure out how disengage gracefully. It's not necessary for you to go down with the ship defending an indefensible post. I can't think of anyone here sufficiently without sin to cast the first stone, so I'd say that it's possible to back down with your honor relatively intact. Beating this dead horse is a silly waste of time.

Can we get back to talking about science now?

--Robert