Ok...I think what I've heard from Mr. Clark sounds intriguing.  I haven't read the book yet so I still cannot comment on it's content.  Most of the slime campaign against him has been focused on his "character" rather than the content of his book.  At least in science, the character of the individual who comes up with a theory or finding doesn't make the rest of the world refute the finding.  Here's an example:

Go outside and yell at the top of your lungs, Sir Issac Newton was an Asshole!  I'll wait.

Ok...now that you've done that...did you float off the ground?  Did sniping at the guy who pointed out the tendency for stuff to stick to the ground (gravity) cause there to be some change in the fact?   Well, nothing has lifted off my desk here in my office...so therefore, at least with the constant of Gravity, slogging the messenger doesn't change anything.

So...politics defys physics?  I'll stick with physics.  Keeps stuff from floating away. 

Does the O'Neill book lend some credibility through "interrater reliablity" to Clark's report?  I dunno. Haven't read that one either. I hardly have time to read Doonsbury and this webpage.  But isn't it interesting. 

I can refute the post that says, "George Bush Beats His Wife" until lots of really good sources point that direction as well.  Even then, I might not believe it...I think Laura could take him.  But lots of folks were wondering about this stuff a year ago.  The 'proof' we were given then was so vague and sketchy, I couldn't get behind it.

Is it that the content is so waterproof that they can only shoot the messenger?

Am I missing something?

PRH