First: The data was present during the ‘discussion’. At the time, I made a hard copy of what Nick posted (for my reference). The printer dated the pages 9/15/00. As George pointed out, that section of the Guillemot site has been updated since, but the data in question was there at the time.

Second: even if we assume that the data in question was not posted at the time, George’s statement that “…I made the comment that the results did not agree with the model that has the glass carrying the whole load. He [Sam] agreed.” was and is a perversion of reality.

Just another example of the George Roberts bob-and-weave, duck-and-roll convoluted approach to affecting a posture of correctness. I wonder what sort of twisting gyrations George would resort to in order explain his inability to correctly analyze the Arctic Raider results posted by Andrew Eddy (http://www.kayakforum.com/cgi-bin/Technique/index.cgi?read=2332). I have noticed that since then, he has felt free to authoritatively describe the wonders of “good drag” and “bad drag” without the slightest reference to those who schooled him in the subject.

I have work to do.

Sam