You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum
RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS?
It's not my purpose to disappoint you, so let me try to rephrase it. I see you are highly motivated to do this research, and you are doing your homework. When you provide insight, explanations, and supporting links, even just a short couple of lines, this is exactly the color I seek. Maybe I'm not normal, but I guess the idea of a discussion forum is to discuss, and not dictate truths or falsehoods. Sometimes, you give conclusions, like "that idea has been disproven and is widely now known to be false in the scientific community", that pique my interest, and leave me wanting. This is what I mean by black and white. Occasionally, we see science go back and forth, so what is false today, may turn out to be a little bit true tomorrow.
My purpose in defending Tinman, is I have seen a history of others (not you) bashing him, for reasons I didn't understand, when he gives valuable information and discussion. In this specific case, Tinman asked you what you thought was contradictory, which I thought was fair, and some Tinman-basher still holding a grudge jumped out of the shadows to point out a catalog of some alleged historical hypocrisies, which may (or may not) have been justified then, in that historical context, but is completely irrelevant now.
Please continue your research, and when you are ready to formulate your laymen's terms, I will be here to read it. In the meantime, I will avoid misusing lactic acid, and anaerobic.
Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post.