[Paul Ward]

What you presented is not worth the attention Derek.

Do you expect anyone to take seriously a misunderstood and factually incorrect article on an anti-scientology site? I make no specific comment about scientology - any site that exists to decry something and then goes off on a tangent to have a pop at something else isn't exactly going to be unbiased is it?!

As for rubbishing the source, that is a common mantra of skeptics to complain about . Some webpage they found written by some guy with a chip on his shoulder, too much time on his hands and a poor understanding of the way science works is all too often a rubbish source - it's the way it is.

It's why science is done by scientists and not by asking some bloke on the web or at the bus stop what they reckon might be going on.

You have posted twice on this board until your last post, those 2 posts contained 4 links - 2 of them to a site you had written an article on. I reserve the right to edit links to sites I deem unworthy of attempting to piggy-back off this site (link popularity from high traffic sites is how SE's work on the web to assign authority).

The links are still there if someone is interested, though usually the poster of such links does it to gain publicity for the linked-to site.

You want to discuss things, then fine, but there had better be something of substance, not what you posted before. Did you bother to research the geography of the Peninsula and Ross Sea reagions yet?