Bearing in mind most people here are students, employed in non science fields and are not scientists How are we (the group noted above) to discern what is reported here as 'right and correct' by those who allege they are in 'the know' is correct? Especially when they critisize other accademics and scientists work saying they a e wrong yet they themselves are right, but there is no discernable difference to us with regard to accademic success. What proof do you give to validate your contribution? It is of course easier to have trust in someone who conducts themselves respectfully and conscientiously and does not instead troll like a child crying that they know more but not actually demonstrating it. Though when they do attempt to demosntrate knowledge their apparant character flaw diminishes the desire to pay attention and certainly eliminates any 'bind trust'. I value many members contribution here but generally any trust I have that what they write is correct or valuable is soley based on their conduct of themselves. So what are your credentials when it comes to commenting on another accademics work? What method can I use to judge that your words have value over anyone elses? In the absence of nothing but 'other peoples words' how do I discern fact from fiction, good idea from shit idea? What ranking system exists here, what proof of 'knowledge'? How about you who are so ready to critisize prove yourselves, before expecting others to have BLIND FAITH in what you say.