On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:14:36 +0100, "CWatters"
 wrote:

>
>"@@^>"  wrote in message
>news:6ocbe3tgkh400ecud9dqglmu7j0masl0ps@4ax.com...
>> wikipedia is a serious scientific paper is it? It has no more
>> credibility than Breatharianism,
>
>I missed that last bit. Sounds like you agree Breatharianism has no
>credibility. In which case I agree.
>

You're an obvious arse.