Total visitors right now: 138

Logged-in members:

Karen B.
Richard Crocker

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Changing Attitudes’ Latest Charge of Syringe “Attack”: FALSE

Monday, April 21, 2008 • 12:02 pm

Unfortunately for Messrs Coward and Mac-Iyalla, Peter Ould’s wife has her Ph.D from Oxford in biochemistry, and is quite knowledgeable in the science of chromatography. After translating the French in the report, and the findings described therein, Peter makes clear that no poison or other nefarious substance was in the syringe. We thus have what appears to be yet another phony allegation of an attack. It’s hard to come to any conclusion other than David Mac-Iyalla is either the single most unlucky person on the planet, or he and his Changing Attitudes pals are trying to pull another one over on us.


Thinking Anglicans links to the latest update at Changing Attitudes on the alleged “attack” on David Mac-Iyalla. Oddly coincident with the “attack” that was alleged against the Nigerian funeral gathering (about which no credible evidence has yet been offered), this syringe “attack” was promised to be backed up with solid proof, which Changing Attitudes claims to have posted in the form of the chromatography report at the CA site. Colin Coward claims, “The certificate says is that the substance was a poisonous drug.”

Unfortunately for Messrs Coward and Mac-Iyalla, Peter Ould’s wife has her Ph.D from Oxford in biochemistry, and is quite knowledgeable in the science of chromatography. After translating the French in the report, and the findings described therein, Peter makes clear that no poison or other nefarious substance was in the syringe. We thus have what appears to be yet another phony allegation of an attack. It’s hard to come to any conclusion other than David Mac-Iyalla is either the single most unlucky person on the planet, or he and his Changing Attitudes pals are trying to pull another one over on us.

Peter writes:

The certificate says that the substance is alleged to be poisonous (Drogue Suspectée - Substance D’empoisonnement) but that upon testing was found to contain no substance that showed up on the chromatographic study. There is absolutely nothing on the certificate that indicates either:

  * that the testing was limited to heroin and cocaine
  * that any illegal or suspicious substance was found

And:

We have a police report from Togo that says that a syringe, which was specifically tested to find out whether it had anything poisonous, using a scientific method which would easily show any trace of anything noxious or otherwise, came back blank. Empty.

No poison, no drugs, no nothing.

Which leaves me with only one question - Why bother stabbing someone with a syringe which seems to have had nothing more in it than coloured water?

Why indeed.

Peter has done a great job staying on top of the various charges leveled by Changing Attitudes recently - be sure and read his latest post.

Or more to the point: Having been unable to produce any evidence on the funeral “attack,” and now having been caught in a “questionable characterization” (wink-wink) of the syringe “attack,” to what absurd length does Changing Attitudes intend to push this farcical string of allegations?

As usual, we await the comments from our Worthy Opponents on bearing false witness, and as usual, we’re not going to hold our breath.

The report is archived here for safe-keeping.


49 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Greg—thanks for keeping track of all the various attacks.  Was the “syringe” attack also the motorcycle one, as opposed to the threatening text messages, as opposed to the muscular-man-outside-the-funeral attack?

[1] Posted by Sarah on 04-21-2008 at 12:30 PM • top

Oh, my.

Perhaps this was just a dry run for the future “wet” run, if you know what I mean.
Is there any possibility that there is something to all this?  I can’t believe that someone would make all of this up.

[2] Posted by Paul B on 04-21-2008 at 12:35 PM • top

Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. They mistranslated the French and they didn’t understand the science of chromatography. They also got confused about whether a specific drug was being tested for or whether the techniques involved would demonstrate whether ANY substance was present.
Easy mistakes to make when you’re trying to get out a press release ASAP to support your case.

[3] Posted by Peter O on 04-21-2008 at 12:39 PM • top

Paul B,

Believe it.

We have begged Coward and Mac-Iyalla to produce evidence for the “funeral attack,” and they have come up with nothing - a full month after it allegedly happened.

They promised us proof of the “syringe attack,” and what we get is Coward claiming the report says exactly the opposite of what it actually says.

Making it up? So far, in case after case, it appears that’s exactly what they’re doing.

[4] Posted by Greg Griffith on 04-21-2008 at 12:42 PM • top

Was all this just a practice exercise for a couple guys in a CSI training program?

[5] Posted by hanks on 04-21-2008 at 12:46 PM • top

There must be something in the air about African Anglicanism and poisonous syringes.  Wasn’t there a big stink about a conservative priest that was supposedly poisoned to death by syringe, but that allegation wasn’t substantiated?  Sounds like there are lots of fake hate crimes and rumormongering to go around.

[6] Posted by Violent Papist on 04-21-2008 at 12:49 PM • top

Now come on guys—what’s really important is the seriousness of the charges.

[7] Posted by James Manley on 04-21-2008 at 12:49 PM • top

Maybe it was a cootie shot?  You know, those imaginary shots kids give each other on the playground to prevent cooties.

[8] Posted by Ralinda on 04-21-2008 at 01:04 PM • top

I assume that a full toxicological test was performed, or do they have labs in Togo capable of performing such tests?  Or was this charge fabricated?  My guess is that it was.

[9] Posted by Cennydd on 04-21-2008 at 01:09 PM • top

James,

You’re exactly right! The fact that this could be true is effectively the same as an actual attack.

I think Coward and Mac-Iyalla would be better served looking at real issues of justice (like economic development and food prices in Nigeria) than “misstating” the facts a-la Hilary Clinton.

[10] Posted by texex on 04-21-2008 at 01:18 PM • top

I know several people who have received Hep C from contact with a dirty needle, maybe aids, etc.

[11] Posted by FrVan on 04-21-2008 at 01:24 PM • top

But we have to have the lab report fit the meta-narrative.  The meta-narrative rules all reports and events.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[12] Posted by Philip Snyder on 04-21-2008 at 01:33 PM • top

My French leaves a lot ot be desired, but when I read the report, I got the impression that the report said that no cocaine or heroin was found in the syringe, which doesn’t mean that other substances for which nobody tested weren’t found.  And besides, just as you question why an attacker would stab someone with a syringe of tinted water, I have to ask why you think Changing Attitude would produce a syringe from an attack they (supposedly) know never happened, submit it to testing, and only put tinted water in it.  If there were a Vast Heretical Conspiracy to come up with false evidence for a fictional attack, I’m sure they would be smart enough to fill the syringe with poison instead of water.

In other words, while I can understand your not wanting to trust the testimony of Davis and CA and CAN members, I don’t think you’ve got any evidence that the attack didn’t happen.  Biblically, wouldn’t you want to produce testimony from at least two or three witnesses before charging multiple people with bearing false witness?  All you’d need is a couple of people who were at the event saying that no violence took place, or a couple of people saying that they saw Davis browsing in the market at the time the event was reported to have taken place—that sort of thing.

I really hope that if I called you up and said that someone had just attacked me, you’d offer your prayers for healing, not accusations that I was lying.  I don’t see why CAN members deserve any less.

[13] Posted by Sarah Dylan Breuer on 04-21-2008 at 01:36 PM • top

“I really hope that if I called you up and said that someone had just attacked me, you’d offer your prayers for healing, not accusations that I was lying.”

Right—quite a bit different from issuing press releases about multiple attacks being orchestrated by the Nigerian Anglican Church.

[14] Posted by Sarah on 04-21-2008 at 01:45 PM • top

Dylan,

If I knew you to be someone whose claims I had no reason to doubt, then of course you’d have my prayers for healing.

What we have from these CAN guys is a series - a pattern - of increasingly wild claims of “attacks,” coupled with accusations that they were being perpetrated by the Anglican Church of Nigeria, followed either by no evidence at all, or, in this case, by a blatant misrepresentation of what the toxicology report actually said. Wolf-crying, followed by more wolf-crying, with some wolf-crying thrown in for good measure.

Remember - Coward is claiming that this report confirms their allegations that teh syringe contained poison. As you can see from Peter’s article, it in fact claims nothing of the sort. Are you suggesting we ignore all of the signs that these “attacks” have been fabricated, and instead assume that they actually happened?

[15] Posted by Greg Griffith on 04-21-2008 at 01:53 PM • top

When someone cries “wolf” several times, others should be cautious in believing any further statements from that person (or persons) about impending danger or being attacked.
Especially when that someone is making serious allegations about still other persons, and using the reported (but not substantiated) attack as the basis for those allegations.
Also, your statement I don’t think you’ve got any evidence that the attack didn’t happen is a fallacy of logic—proof by lack of evidence.  Those that make an allegation must prove it—you cannot prove something by lack of evidence.
And I believe that Greg is on record deploring any attacks on people for any reasons—race, gender, sexual preferences—anything.  But these attacks must be substantiated, especially in light of the allegations made by the “attackees”.
Jane, Edwin’s wife

[16] Posted by Edwin on 04-21-2008 at 01:53 PM • top

“What we get is Coward claiming the report says exactly the opposite of what it actually says”
—-Greg Griffith [#4]

If the Ould translation and interpretation of the report is correct, Coward’s claim is potentially the most damning point. None of us has personal knowledge of the events, but the words in the report have an ascertainable meaning (at least to those of us who are not postmodernists).

[17] Posted by Irenaeus on 04-21-2008 at 01:56 PM • top

I really hope that if I called you up and said that someone had just attacked me, you’d offer your prayers for healing, not accusations that I was lying.

Irrelevant.  In your case you’d be believed because to the best of our knowledge you have not misled us previously.  Unfortunately this is not true of everyone.

[18] Posted by st. anonymous on 04-21-2008 at 02:44 PM • top

SDB. I think the ABC still has egg on his face from the frontal acceptance of this claim of attack and his prompt response about how awful things like this must stop.  I await his prompt response to this orcestrated series of non-verifiable alleged acts against the unluckiest person in the world who just happens to also allegedly be homosexual and super-allegedly the object of a series of bumbling attacks which make the Keystone Kops look like CSI.  Do I think that the ABC will ever do the latter? No.  It makes much better news to aid his objectives to do the actions he has done.  After all this is the man who can whitewash the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC dissing of the Anglican Communion.  His level of evidentiary requirement might allow him to do both, but no amount of absence of data will convince him that these attacks did not happen.  You seem to be in the same camp.
It is a psychological and psychiatric truism that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviours.  That’s true for serial truth-telling and serial lying.  It also appears to be true for serial false-reporting.

[19] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 04-21-2008 at 02:50 PM • top

Sarah DB [13],

It all has to do with credibility. CAN isn’t credible when the best defense supporters can give is “I don’t think you’ve got any evidence that the attack didn’t happen.” The logic is all backwards. The onus is on CAN to show that an attack DID happen AND to demonstrate that the Nigerian Anglican Church is behind them (an implication Mr. Coward has backed away from, BTW) - that’s the biblical position.

Instead, we got two stories about alledged attacks and the non-too-subtle subtext that the church is targeting Mr. Mac-Iyalla and the weasel position that even if the church isn’t targeting him the position that homosexuality is wrong is a leading contributor to the alleged attack.

I think virtually every American felt sorry for Crystal Gail Mangum… until it was obvious she was lying.

[20] Posted by texex on 04-21-2008 at 03:09 PM • top

And besides, just as you question why an attacker would stab someone with a syringe of tinted water, I have to ask why you think Changing Attitude would produce a syringe from an attack they (supposedly) know never happened, submit it to testing, and only put tinted water in it.

I think Ms. Breuer has a point.

[21] Posted by oscewicee on 04-21-2008 at 03:12 PM • top

I hope Sarah Dylan Breuer hasn’t left this thread…I’m wanting to read her response to Greg (#15).

[22] Posted by Peter Mitchell on 04-21-2008 at 03:17 PM • top

oscewicee,

You’re thinking to logically.

The idea behind CAN’s allegations isn’t to prove guilt of attacks. All they have to do is demonstrate that an attack is possible, with in the realm of possibility, and they are given the rhetorical leverage they need to claim that the church’s position on homosexuality logically leads to violence. They’re not interested in bringing alleged attackers to justice, what they want is the BBC or other media outlet to pick up the story while the facts are in dispute - that’s all they need to make their point. No one will care that the charges are trumped up as the news cycle would have moved on.

[23] Posted by texex on 04-21-2008 at 03:26 PM • top

I went to the CA site and read the report. Granted, my French is very poor. Can someone confirm that “NEGATIVE” in French is similar to the same word in English?

[24] Posted by texex on 04-21-2008 at 03:28 PM • top

The test results on the syringe are very clearly negative.  I say this having been accused by my German prof. of speaking German with a French accent.

[25] Posted by Ed the Roman on 04-21-2008 at 03:38 PM • top
[26] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 04-21-2008 at 03:42 PM • top

Negative, with an accent aigu over the first e is the same as negative in Englisth. It isn’t clear to me on the document Greg has archived exactly what the sample is negative for. Nothing is written on the line for suspected drug or the line for the poison. The report is dated April 16 -  how long ago did this story first appear?

[27] Posted by oscewicee on 04-21-2008 at 03:43 PM • top

“If I called you up and said that someone had just attacked me”

Note the relevance of timing. Let’s say that Mac-Iyalla approached me, identified himself, told me he had just been attacked, and asked me to follow the attackers. I would do so, even now, because if the attack did occur, letting the perpetrators escape would do irreparable harm; whereas pursuing the alleged perpetrators might involve only modest exertion and risk.

Dissecting and debating the events weeks afterwards presents a different picture. Greg and the Oulds are (it seems to me) withholding nothing that Mac-Iyalla urgently needs and has legitimately asked from.

[28] Posted by Irenaeus on 04-21-2008 at 03:53 PM • top

Gas Chromatography can analyze the unknown substance by comparing the colour it gives off when “burned” against the library of known colours of the entire spectrum. Every chemical has its signature color. You must look for something specific if your sample liquid is limited—in this case it is the National Narcotics Lab and they specialize in drugs. So—negative for drugs. Not tested for bleach, urine, sewage, benzene, any number of household cleaners, spun serum etc. When running a test, you must give the machine a hint of where you want to look, ie what chemical family. These tests cost $100+ each in the States. There are thousands of possible outcomes. I think this is most unseemly to attack a very thin lab report as a means of discrediting a human being. Isn’t Our Lord saddened by an attack on a person by a sharp object? Or must it be full of an easily identified poison? Is there any one of you who would be truly comforted by this ” Negative ” if it were your child?  This report proves nothing and unless the police told the Lab ” Spare no expense; run the gamut day and night” we will never know. There wouldn’t have even been enough substance to test that extensively in that size syringe.

[29] Posted by Runk on 04-21-2008 at 04:04 PM • top

Runk,

I take your point, but we have no indication that gas chromatography WAS the method used. It could have been liquid chromatography or any other method. If the method involved produced a chromatogram then there would have been much more likelihood of spotting a poisonous substance which after all was what the test was meant to do.

[30] Posted by Peter O on 04-21-2008 at 04:30 PM • top

RE: “Or must it be full of an easily identified poison?”

Well—yes, when the press release from Colin Coward says “The certificate says is that the substance was a poisonous drug.”

[31] Posted by Sarah on 04-21-2008 at 04:41 PM • top

I wonder if a “not” is missing in Colin Coward’s account. I don’t see how anyone could publish a translation that clearly says the results are “negative” under a statement saying that the certificate says the results were positive. Also, if he were saying that the results were positive, why would he go on to say that the test was apparently for heroin or cocaine and not for another poisonous substance? Of course, I am also having difficulty understanding what an incident in Togo, with an unknown assailant, has to do with the Anglican Church in Nigeria.

[32] Posted by oscewicee on 04-21-2008 at 04:56 PM • top

oscewicee #27—

Nothing is written on the line for suspected drug or the line for the poison.

I think you may be misreading the form.  I read it:

Nature of suspect substance: Liquid
Suspected drug: Poisonous substance
Name of possessor: None
.
.
Description:  Liquid contained in 10cc syringe, yellowish in color, abandoned by a crook [misspelled, malfrat] in a poisoning attempt.

Identification analysis:  The identification analysis of the liquid contained in the 10cc syringe, of the sample numbered 150/08, by our chromatographic methods, is negative.

Result:  Drug test NEGATIVE.
=========
The point is, this was specifically a test to identify a poisonous substance, not a test restricted to illegal drugs.  With all due respect, for SDB to maintain that it was merely a test for recreational street drugs is contrary to the contents of the form itself.

[33] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 04-21-2008 at 05:06 PM • top

Craig, Thanks. When I went back to look, I realized I had misread that line of the form, thinking there were two choices and two blanks, instead of one choice for one blank. That the results were negative could hardly be more evident and, obviously, according to the form, it was *not* a test for a “recreational” drug. Sorry for adding my own confusion to the discussion.

[34] Posted by oscewicee on 04-21-2008 at 05:12 PM • top

Runk, the credibility of entire attack story is brought into question by the obviously false characterization of the test results. You are now saying that they did not necessarily test for the right drug. Perhaps. But those promoted this story shouldn’t point to the drug test as support for the proposition that a drug was used. That is a simple falsehood, just like the “African Bishops with Multiple Wives” canard that periodically makes its way around Episcopal circles.

[35] Posted by Going Home on 04-21-2008 at 05:59 PM • top

I’ve been nosing around the CA website and stumbled on a list of “Welcoming and Open Congregations.” There are 25 in the whole of the United Kingdom.

ANother interesting nugget in the “What we believe” section:

“as the positive contribution of the gay community towards society becomes clearer, the church’s mission to this expanding group becomes urgent”

I’m surprised to hear CA thinks the church’s mission for a particular group is predicated on that group’s contribution to society.

[36] Posted by texex on 04-21-2008 at 06:22 PM • top

I am confused. When did we talk about an attack with a syringe? I looked back at the original accounts and there is no mention of a syringe. If I was attacked with a syringe in a country where the prevalence of HIV is high, I would mention that first.

And I note further down in the original account from the Advocate,

Those who attacked me were well-informed about us, so I suspect an insider or one of the leaders of our Anglican church have hands in this attack.


How offensive is that? The attackers were “well informed” so naturally they had to be Church of Nigeria thugs and that ABp Akinola is personally responsible.

Smear campaign is a very apt descriptor. It is sad that ABp Williams lent his name to the effort. Bearing false witness is on the top ten. Those responsible for this vilifying the Church of Nigeria and its clergy should pause and reconsider.

[37] Posted by robroy on 04-21-2008 at 07:10 PM • top

Comment #29 basically oversimplified the science (and art) of chromatography. Originally color detection was used with ‘paper chromatograpy’, but color is not the typical detection method used in todays chromatographic systems. There are various detection methods (including color) including flame ionization, photo ionization, thermal conductivity, etc., etc.

The sample probably was also not tested for nitrogen, helium, argon, or a host of common materials which in higher concentrations could be hazardous to your health smile

[38] Posted by Bob (aka BobbyJim) on 04-21-2008 at 11:59 PM • top

Next CA panic attack will be Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with a Candlestick.
Intercessor

[39] Posted by Intercessor on 04-22-2008 at 12:37 AM • top

I recall one report to the effect that after the attackr cut McIyella’s hand with a knife, he(or was it she)tried to attack him with a syringe.  What I missed was how McIyella, with an injured hand, wresteled that person to the ground and took the syringe away from him(her).  My question is: How did the syringe, allegedly used in the alleged attack, end up in the testing laboratory?

OK, There are 3 (so far as I know) incidents here:

1. At a funeral for Davis’ sister, the “leader” of CAN in the region of Port Harcourt in Nigeria was accosted while singing hymns, asked to step outside, directed to some place a few steps away and attacked by a mob of Errol Flynn wannabees shouting, “You cad! I shall thrash you within an inch of your miserable life! Stand, sir, and defend yourself, you, you, notorious homosexual!” (or words to such dramatic effect, but all the same upper-crust Victorian).

2. A couple of days earlier, or was it later, Davis was walking down a busy street, alone, when an SUV (and something to do with a motorcycle) pulled up and a few people got out. They talked. They tried to push Davis into the SUV. He resisted. In the process someone pulled a knife and his hand was cut. Someone else had a syringe. More scuffles and the SUV crowd decided to leave in a hurry, dropping the syringe in their haste to go wherever. Davis did not “wrestle them to the ground.” He picked up the syringe, wrapped his hand in some convenient cloth (perhaps his shirt), visited the police and a clinic. The police, one assumes, sent the syringe for testing (as they should).

3. Several people of CA in at least 2 countries seem to have received text messages on their cell phones from a Nigerian number that are interpreted by some as death threats or at least threats of violence.

Personally, I believe the attack in #1 probably happened, but it was not at the funeral, not by anti-gay people (whether Church people or not). The guy probably got himself whupped-up on for some other reason, perhaps embarassing if anyone should find out, and invented his Captain Blood drama in 3 acts , complete with coreographed swordplay, in order to cover his embarrassment. I’ve no idea what the truth is as to where, who and why, but the important point in response to CA is NO ONE KNOWS. Yet CA claims it was the Church of Nigeria all the same.

I have no problem accepting the text message claims of #3. They probably existed. The question remains, who sent them? How does anybody legitimately infer it was from someone in the Church? It may as well have been Bono or the Easter Bunny. No one has made any formal attempt to use the sending telephone numbers to identify the senders. And yes, there was more than 1 sending telephone number.

As to Davis’ personal attack #2, I think he probably was attacked. I also give him enough credit that he did not go find a syringe, fill it with colored water, take it to the police and had them test it. There probably was a syringe in the attack. But as pointed out earlier, it does not need to contain a chemical. It could contain bacteria or a virus. It could contain anything “normal” such as urine, but when injected into the blood or into the nervous system could cause any number of problems up to and including death. It needn’t be in the liquid, either. The liquid could have been unimportant. The virus or poison, such as HIV, hepatitis or ricin, could simply have existed on the outside of the needle and there it would do it’s job if inserted under the skin.

What we need to keep in mind is these attacks, one way or another, probably did happen. What CA needs to keep in mind is that when one of their people is attacked, the attacker need not be sent by, in the employ of, nor have the blessing of the Church. CA needs further to understand that if they’re going to level charges of physical violence against anyone (Church or AA or the Boy Scouts), they need to have at least a shred of evidence as to WHO committed the crime. Simply doing some modicum of work to document a crime took place does not justify leveling charges against one’s favorite target of criticism.

On the one hand I have to question the lab’s policies and procedures, equipment and personnel. What exactly did they test for, or more to the point, what did they not test for? Did they test for organic bodies in addition to chemicals? Did they test the needle or only the liquid? Was their equipment calibrated and the technicians properly trained? Perhaps the Togo police are much the same as police were in the USA back in the 60s and conveniently “lost” the original syringe and substituted another. The report I read isn’t very telling, especially in the techniques used and what was tested for. It just says a “poisonous substance” and “our” chromatic methods. I note it does not refer to some ISO standard of testing (assuming there is one), just “our” methods, whatever that is.

On the other hand, Davis has cried wolf w.r.t. the Church before. A couple of well-documented times were last year just before Dar es Salaam and again just after. He never knew the people who invaded his apartment. He never knew the people who called his cell phone after DES was over and said, “So. You’re back from Tanzania” and hung up. Yet he saw no problem in interpreting these as death threats. He saw no problem blaming the Church for those threats. He saw no problem in saying the Church ordered the threats and attacks and was complicit with them.

Davis and Collin need to grow up and stop inventing boogey-bears under the bed when they turn the lights out at night. Or at least stop their willful and repeated libel. I feel bad David can’t seem to say in public what’s on his mind without others wanting to bash his skull in, but he may as well be blaming the KGB, She, It, The Thing, The Blob and the Creature from the Black Lagoon for as much “evidence” he has.

[40] Posted by Antique on 04-22-2008 at 03:04 AM • top

Stand by for a comment condemnnig the attack by Williams which will be all over BBC news.

If/when it is ever proven to be false we will never here of it.

This is an orcestrated media campaign (propaganda) to give leaverage for hate speech laws which will marginalse, even prosecute Christians. We know Chaging attitues and Stonewall are certainly running the UK now…

http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2008/family/stonewall_18apr08.htm

This is all for the UK media and beguiling te general public.

[41] Posted by jedinovice on 04-22-2008 at 03:08 AM • top

Has there been a change in the CA report?  Peter Ould has it saying “The certificate says is [sic that the substance was a poisonous drug. The police apparently tested for heroin and cocaine assuming the syringe contained a drug and not another poisonous substance.” - but now the page linked above says “The report concludes that the test for drugs was negative. It does not come to a conclusion about the possibility of the substance being a poison.”  No indication is given of an update or change to this page.

[42] Posted by j.m.c. on 04-22-2008 at 06:58 AM • top

Having worked in a spectrochemical lab for 14 years, let me ask all readers to discount Runk’s description of gas chromatography as presented in #29.  What he describes is a primitive form (flame) of optical emission spectroscopy, but does not at all describe gas chromatography, which provides a time-based spectrum for the time required for differing components of the gas to travel through a tube packed with a specific medium.  In this way the different components are separated and can even at that point be subjected to further analysis if the output is already connected to a mass spectrometer.  In such case the entire procedure is refered to as GCMS.

Did not wish to present a class in chemical technology, but today it is reasonable for the layman to hear about these tools.  They have become almost as commonplace in a chem lab as a good microscope and certainly more common than an electron microscope.

[43] Posted by CanaAnglican on 04-22-2008 at 02:16 PM • top

Perhaps we might note that alongside Nigeria’s position as a centre of traditional-belief Christianity, she is also home to a thriving subculture in cyber crime, confidence trickery and fraud.
It seems plain into which camp C.A. has chosen to pitch its tent, n’est-ce pas?
Chris

[44] Posted by chorale on 04-24-2008 at 02:27 AM • top

Chorale, is not that just the type of place you would want the Word of God to be proclaimed?  And who else will do it but the church?

[45] Posted by rwkachur on 04-24-2008 at 03:02 AM • top

From:rwkachur
“Chorale, is not that just the type of place you would want the Word of God to be proclaimed?  And who else will do it but the church?”

Indeed, yes. But not any FLAVOUR of church, surely? Intervention by the Anglican Church of Nigeria, with its beliefs rooted in the Scriptures as given to us, is one thing. Intervention by say,  Changing Attitudes, with its beliefs rooted in a party-bag of pseudo-religious, liberal novelty, and its manifest willingness to deceive, is something quite other.
Chris.

[46] Posted by chorale on 04-24-2008 at 04:15 AM • top

I’m sorry,there is some confusion, I thought you were implying corruption on the part of the Church of Nigeria because it was Nigerian.

[47] Posted by rwkachur on 04-24-2008 at 05:08 AM • top

re:48 & 45.
Oh dear! I am so sorry that I left that interpretation open. I keep forgetting how carefully emails etc. need to be crafted to avoid mis-understanding.
Chris.

[48] Posted by chorale on 04-24-2008 at 05:53 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.