Quote Originally Posted by pctower
Keep trying, PC....are you having difficultly getting more substantial evidence (like Mtry's ever growing list?)

I only look for "evidence" when I'm trying to prove something. When it comes to cables, I'm not one bit interested in proving anything.

Ever so often I see something like this paper that I have not seen referenced or discussed before. Since I have been under the assumption that discussion is the purpose of boards like this, I post it in an effort to move the discussion beyond the level of "yeasayer" vs. "naysayer".

But, candidly, so many people seem locked into that "matrix" (on both sides) that such efforts generally fall flat and are hardly worth the effort. I, myself, can't seem to escape from that "prison of the mind" because I seem to believe that in order to stimulate discussion or get it started I need to needle one side or the other when I post the reference. To the extent I contribute to the problem, I take responsibility for that.

I appreciate your link as I wasn't aware of it. I sent it on for comments. It has been discussed at other web sites. Not very convincing, Jung has been long discredited about his assumptions as well.

Just as the phase shift paper from Miami U that has statistics issues, this has issues as well.