J R Molloy <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Since there was no scientific basis for any of the fantastic claims made
> > regarding "white powder of gold", it would be a waste of time/money/effort
> > to demonstrate that it's crap.
> You must not have read the articles at the URLs cited in the original post.
> Or did you? How many did you read? Which ones?
> (Thought so.)
You got me. I didn't read any of them. My bogosity meter buried the needle
before I got all the way through your message.
In response to your challenge, though, I did read the first link and skimmed
a couple others. It turns out that my bogosity meter is working perfectly
after all: this white gold stuff is nothing but mumbo jumbo. It's pretty
good for pseudoscientific gibberish, but I don't think it'd fool anyone who
knows anything about science, especially chemistry.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:17 MDT