I would very much welcome Midgley's explanation, with sufficient
factual evidence, to show how he arrives at the opinion shown by his
statement:-
"If someone holding themselves out as an expert witness says that a
paper supports a conclusion, then the judge does not expect on reading it
to find that it in fact supports the opposite conclusion. This is the
situation the judge remarked on, adversely, and which has resulted in
further investigation".
I am of the opinion that the problems Dr Donegan faced in that court
were far more complex, and my own response alludes to that fact, than
Midgley would have us believe through his oversimplifications.
Regards
John H.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
10 November 2004
John P. Heptonstall
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. TCM Practitioner
Rapid Response:
Re: trolling or obfuscation
Sir
I would very much welcome Midgley's explanation, with sufficient
factual evidence, to show how he arrives at the opinion shown by his
statement:-
"If someone holding themselves out as an expert witness says that a
paper supports a conclusion, then the judge does not expect on reading it
to find that it in fact supports the opposite conclusion. This is the
situation the judge remarked on, adversely, and which has resulted in
further investigation".
I am of the opinion that the problems Dr Donegan faced in that court
were far more complex, and my own response alludes to that fact, than
Midgley would have us believe through his oversimplifications.
Regards
John H.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests