General Comments, page-2985

Its an interesting topic. But there is a very big difference between building a body of discovery and hypothesis to explain the new discoveries, which are peer reviewed and builds acceptance until it becomes fact (like climate change or the centre of our solar system being it's centre of mass and not the Earth). And discovering something like living tissue in fossils/bone and using that to try and convince creationists that it is evidence there beliefs are correct.

The scientific method is a process that helps differentiate good from bad science as well as pseudo-science. I'd very happily bet my house that the discovery of living tissue in dinosaur fossils was riddled with bad science, poor observations and bad conclusions.

To bring the conversation back to Norwood, the very beginning of it's resurrection was filled with smoke and mirrors. Charts showing ever increasing downloads and income while rates actually dropped sharply, targets and extrapolated contract values that never hit even 20% of what was announced. This isn't showing a set of facts and different groups drawing different conclusions. This is deliberately presenting information that is at odds with the state of the business. As we know Norwood eventually were forced to correct the record.

More recently Norwood have pulled their head in and simply reported while using lots of weasel words and hopeful language with many promises to provide information broken and ignored. They still manipulate information, like flicking between commenting on quarterly or half yearly values depending on the story they are trying to present.

The idea that anyone can look at the information Norwood presents and come away with a positive outlook is confirmation bias. It's not an impartial assessment of the facts. This is not the same as two impartial people looking at data and having divergent opinions as you mulled.