Christopher, could you give a reference for your use of "Null hypothesis"? ------------------------------------- The following was stated: "Henry's science background is in Chemistry. Mine was originally Animal Science for Pre-Vet, then a recent "second time around" at college for Psychology and Physical Anthropology, with special interests in genetics, ethology, and a dash of neural and hormonal influences on behavior. So neither of us is really the one to ask about plant viruses. That person would be Dr. Malcolm Manners." ------------------------------------------------------------ H.Kuska comment. A Ph.D degree in Physical Chemistry is expected to prepare a scientist to investigate the physics, and chemistry involved in understanding nature. It is a very broad theoretical based major in nature understanding. Some examples can be found in the following links: http://degreedirectory.org/articles/Colleges_with_Physical_Chemistry_Degree_Programs_FAQs.html "Physical chemistry seeks to understand the physical and scientific basis of molecular properties and chemical phenomena. It can be used to understand how proteins fold, how nanostructures form and why holes in the ozone layer originated" http://degreedirectory.org/directory/category/Physical_Science/Chemistry_Sciences/Theoretical_and_Physical_Chemistry.html ----------------------------------------------------- Regarding Dr. Manners knowledge and my knowledge of rose viruses. In almost any field there are more than one Ph.D. scientist that can contribute to the field. This is illustrated in this particular situation by the citations in one of the most recent rose viruses reviewed published scientific papers. Dr. Manners is cited for his: " Manners MM (1997) Effects of rose mosaic disease on performance of hybrid tea roses in Florida. Proc Fla State Hortic Soc 110:118��"121" This is the context for the use of his presented paper: "Previous reports have shown that symptom expression, virus distribution and virus detection can be influenced by several factors including cultivar, changing seasons/weather and growing conditions (Manners 1997; Sala-Rejczak and Paduch-Cichal 2005; Sertkaya 2010; Wong et al. 1988)." -------------------------------------------------------- I am cited for the following paper: "Kuska H (2003) Can North American rose hybridizers use pollen from virus infected roses? Rose Hybridizers Assoc Newsl 34:7��"10" This is the context for the use of my paper: "PNRSV is known to be transmitted mechanically, by root grafting and by seed (Abdel-Salam et al. 2008; Golino et al. 2011). The virus may be transmitted by pollen in rose although this hasn’t been fully ascertained (Kuska 2003)." AND "Reports of pollen transmission of ApMVin rose are inconclusive (Kuska 2003), but in view of the characteristics of other ilarviruses, it is possible that ApMV could be dispersed by pollen." I feel that the appearance of any reference (unless being attacked) in a reviewed scientific journal means that the authors, reviewers, and editor feel that it has scientific merit for being included. Here is a link that might be useful: link to recent rose research virus paper This post was edited by henry_kuska on Fri, Dec 26, 14 at 10:53

I'm in! Just sat down and thought I'd give it another try. I had cleared the GardenWeb site out of my "bookmarks" last night; but continued to type in a search for "Gardenweb forums" off and on and got the AVG warning all day. Well, the pop up warning is gone - sure hope that means either AVG or GW put things right and not that AVG gave up on telling me to stay away and said "Go ahead if you want into GW so bad". ha. Anyway, so far so good. I'll be sure to pay attention to the next scheduled AVG daily scan and see if it picks it up in my system. Thanks Annie, for directing my inquiry here and to other Cottagers. Now - what have I missed today? Time to read.

Antivirus Vista 2010, Win 7 Antispyware 2010, and XP Internet Security 2010 are new rogues that are exactly the same program, but are shown with different names and interfaces depending on the version of Windows that it is run on. After I wrote this guide, I was told that this rogue goes under quite a few different names. Do the best you can, then head to a Malware removal forum. Here is a link that might be useful: virus-removal/remove-antivirus-vista

What might be the moral to the story? This might be it: wait a little while if you are shocked when you read about a problem that sounds shocking to you. It probably also sounds shocking to everyone, but wait. Don't be trigger happy. Don't indulge yourself by typing out your feelings. Wait. Someone will post some kind of fact-based response within a few hours. Isn't there a Supreme Court Justice who subscribes to this theory of conservation of personal (his) initiative? He doesn't believe in "indulging himself" by vocalizing any thought processes, either. Of course, I don't recall his reserve having garnered him many plaudits for holding his curiousity or opinion in check. My initial position was paraphrased by marcolo several times. Several people have made a big ado about it. Marcolo pointed out why it is good to ask for information first. Wow. What a new idea. Ask around. Get new input. (MARCOLO! Paging Dr. Marcolo! Need Davidro-to-english translation help here, please.) Assuming I understood the point of the post, isn't that what a post on the Kitchen Forum is about? Airing personal experience, making correlations, getting opinions on similarity or dissimilarity of experience? I don't believe that posting is an automatic ticket to litigation-city. That said, while I don't disagree with David that the massive haemorrhaging of personal outrage on the KF can be a trifle wearying, the instances cited here that have apparently motivated this thread are ridiculous. For one thing: "exploding glass doors" vs "exploding glass doors that way". Yes, tempered glass explodes "that way" but to think that anyone should be expected to be blase and off-hand about the fact that their oven door blasted itself open in the course of its "normal operation" (I'll hold my opinion on self-clean in check here) is asking for the moon. It doesn't matter than tempered glass breaks a certain way - it does matter that it spontaneously imploded without a clear and discernible impact to trigger; that makes the data noteworthy and the event really should be publicized. Yes, perhaps the glass was subjected to stresses beyond normal range a while back - or even undetected anomalous events at the time of high drama: bird strike, pellets, surface scratches, edge impact - and now the smallest minor perturbation to the nominal took it beyond its elastic limit, so to speak. But if a certain product has a habit of shattering (multiple reported such outcomes) - well, the likelihood that there should be such a high correlation between purveyors of that item and 6-sigma beyond norm events that shattering glass should be an expected outcome, is statistically insignificant. More than likely then, there is indeed a manufacturing defect - either in the glass manufacture process, or planarity of the door frame into which it is inserted, its tensioning or some other assembly process. Tempered glass might shatter safely, but it doesn't have a habit of shattering so much so that anyone buying ovens or doors or whatever should expect that after the 3year/5year/7year window that they should expect to walk upto an imploded door. This is just silly. It is absolutely the right thing to do to air the fact that E'lux's oven door shattered in self-clean mode. If many E'lux ovens do that, it is likely an E'lux problem and won't be known until such complaints are aired, collected and documented. If many oven doors shatter in self-clean then either ovens will get to a point where they won't use glass in self-clean ovens or self-cleaning will be outmoded (yesssssss!). Whatever. (regardless that as far as I know, self-clean temps are well inside the tolerance regime of tempered glass). None of this happens until the user airs this. & others aren't edified until they happen upon such reports. The only factually incorrect, if that, information I ran across on the e'lux oven thread was the moral outrage about the health risks of someone walking into the glass shards. Fact is that shattered tempered glass is safer than regular shattered glass but it's no bowl of tofu, chaps. So, while I think that keeping a bit of a tamp on the emotional quotient isn't a bad idea, the motivating example has even me arguing against this thread and I certainly don't support the idea of filter's eliminating posts that exceed some imagined emotion threshold or pass someone's idea of fact-filled posts. If the last was the case, I doubt that the OP's post (top post, this thread) would have made the cut .... Hmmmm, come to think of it ....