I was not slamming Dave for posting the original article. I just have it in for 'studies' that are poorly designed, have too little statistical significance and then offer claims of proof.
In college I learned about the 'post hoc' falacy in logic class. This same type of reasoning is also the basis of superstitions (walking under ladders is bad luck, type of thing).
Last night I was in a rare mood and, admittedly, went off on the article. I feel better today (feel free to have some fun with it, I won't mind), but stand by my critique.
My apology to Acroholic, if I offended you in any way. I hope that you know I have way too much respect for you, to do that intentionally.
Respectfully,
Bill