From an earlier post ("Hardly") currently on page 2: "As for the Pathfinder data you commented on I have no idea what you are talking about. Barry speaks endlessly of Viking not Pathfinder. I don't read everything Barry posts because so much of it is obviously incosistent, contradictory, and often highly misleadingly out of context."
I'd provide a link but I can't reach the back pages except through nexus and the individual article addresses don't show there.

Asked and answered EP. Try doing the same or continue emulating Barry. I don't really care.

A comet would certainly provide more protection than a patato sized rock. Possibly even enough to protect over interstellar distances. However there was no linkage between Hoyle's flu data and any comet that I saw. Given your past inaccuracies I doubt you know what you are talking about either. Just because Hoyle has discussed comet based panspermia does not mean he did in the particular recycled paper Barry quotes so often. If you have a link indicating otherwise please provide it. I will promptly apologize to Barry if indeed the proposed transfer mechanisms were of ballpark similar feasibility.

My training as a chemical engineer gives me training in applying logic to solve nonroutine and open ended problems. No doubt you are unaware that p-chem and organic chemistry class requirements for BS Chem E students are generally more rigorous than those for chemistry and biochemistry majors. My minor in statistics give sme a good feel for probability. My other minor in microbial physiology in conjunction with related graduate research in biochemical engineering gives me relevant microbiology background. On the job training in hazard analysis to prevent major chemical accidents makes me familiar with the process of risk analysis and reduction. A lifelong interest in evolution is also relevant. It does not surprise me that you can not evaluate my comments as evidence of this background. It does not surprise me either that you don't see any relevance in this background nor that you can not distinquish between the strength of arguments based on internal logic and original thinking and those based primarily on selective quoting of others work.

Regards,
Mark