Sorry for getting my omegas messed up.
Jerrey,
Thanks to you and others for pointing out my error.
I will try to get this fixed. For now, stick with the story.
I will try to get it fixed.
Howard
Headline in the 'corrected' post still has it wrong -- or at least implies the opposite of what the text says was found.
Headlilne still says low Omega 3, high Omega 6 is best.
But it's the opposite, as the text says. High Omega 3, low Omega 6 is best.
Repeating the same erroneous headline while prefacing it with "Correction" seems to just repeat the error.
It's the headline that needed to be corrected, not the story, in either post, isn't it?.
Jerrey,
Thanks to you and others for pointing out my error.
I will try to get this fixed. For now, stick with the story.
I will try to get it fixed.
Howard
Headline in the 'corrected' post still has it wrong -- or at least implies the opposite of what the text says was found.
Headlilne still says low Omega 3, high Omega 6 is best.
But it's the opposite, as the text says. High Omega 3, low Omega 6 is best.
Repeating the same erroneous headline while prefacing it with "Correction" seems to just repeat the error.
It's the headline that needed to be corrected, not the story, in either post, isn't it?.