A reply to Robinson

Reply to Robinson.

TO THE EDITOR—We thank Robinson [1] for the comments about our report [2] and for the opportunity to clarify our findings. As we stated in our research protocol (clinical trials registration NCT00500578) in the Materials and Methods section in our report, as well as in our response to Fätkenheuer et al [3], the prespecified significance threshold for declaring one arm superior to the other was ...

A Problem in Avicennas View on the Origination of the Soul and a Reply to It

A Problem of Robinson

We propose to prove in this paper a conjecture of R. M. Robinson which generalizes to domains of connectivity w ^ 3 a result which he proved [3] for doubly-connected domains. Let D be a finite domain of the s-plane bounded by n^2 simple, closed, disjoint analytic curves, &, • • • , Cn, whose sum we denote by C. Let z0 be a point of D. We consider the class 0 of functions F(z) in D with a t most...

Reply to Robinson et al.: Building the evidence base on the forest cover effects of community titling.

We thank Robinson et al. (1) for their thoughtful comments on our article (2). We agree with their main point, which is that our findings about the link between titling and forest cover change are contextand time-specific, and do not necessarily generalize to other countries and other periods. However, it is important to make clear that our article (2): (i ) does not claim to present generaliza...

A Reply to Pickering

I felt I should reply to Andy Pickering’s short Response to my long Review of his book; I did not want to leave it uncontested in the literature.1 I will pick up a couple of points from his comments to indicate just what it is that he has failed to grasp about my Review. If these points are understood, then all else falls into place. Though Pickering writes that my critical remarks ‘form a disc...