Ed ebnelson wrote:
the seepage is evidence of SOMETHING seeping, not just H2O

Alex writes:
Which is probably why I specifically wrote "...just as [the seepage sites] *are* evidence, assuming one accepts the non-liquied [sic] H2O arguments, for other putative fluids." At any rate, I've always acknowledged Nick's original thinking on the issue, and feel that he has certainly added to the debate. That said, as a scientist I am more persuaded by normal scientific discourse, the published peer-reviewed literature, and reasoned debate by people who know what they are talking about, rather than someone's (considerable) charm or lack thereof. I do not merely "accept" the White Mars hypothesis (or even Blue Mars for that matter) based on glib pontification or ludicrous, mentally unbalanced, and/or ill-informed claims that "the Mars science community is promoting Blue Mars for funding."

Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii