"Gil Hardwick" <gruagach@highway1.com.au> wrote: > What is coming across here at this end, recalling that we are around > the other side of the planet, is a whole lot of petty, pedantic > bickering over some minor issue apparently looming as of sufficient > importance to a few of the American contingent as to cause them to > argue over it for weeks on end, but to the rest of us here is a > non-issue. What is coming back is run-on sentences that seem to say it doesn't make any difference if people claim a process can do things it is inherently incapable of doing, at least for now. > Surely placing the whole thing into perspective is sufficient to > leave any who choose to adopt the procedure to do so as they wish, > and pay whatever money they wish, none of which altering their lack > of standing is legitimate researchers one iota. Of course. I didn't see anyone claim otherwise and doubt they would, even on this side of the planet, where we are petty, pedantic bickerers. > Why would anybody bother arguing with them, for heavens sake? For heaven's sake, I sure never argued any of the points you now raise. What I did is present evidence that unwarranted claims are being made about what DNA testing has done or can do for genealogists and (b) express my opinion that the cost-benefit ratio doesn't suit me at present. No one has made any effort to refute point (a), other than to point to sites reporting on DNA studies - and these sites also point out what you can't expect to learn from such a study. As for the latter, anyone can hold a differing opinion without either of us being right or wrong. Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>