Why is anybody dragged in? The Bell paper has been linked to. Anybody can defend or attack the paper. If someone thinks the paper is flawed - then attack it. If someone thinks it is sound, then highlight the strengths.

I don't understand why every time a topic is brought up or a paper is linked to we must go through this cataloging of who will be taking what position. I say use the NIKE philosophy - Just Do It! This micromanaging is ridiculous and pointless.

The same questions were asked on Arp et al. "Is any arpian willing to defend X,Y,Z, X',Y'Z' ?" ... I stepped forward and said I would defend the notion that bridges provide evidence for interaction. Cougar, antoniseb, and Fram engaged in that discussion. Perhaps the relevance of this pre-discussion cataloging is best recognized by a post-cataloging of the bridges discussion participants.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982