Copper Levels In Women (clipped From Earlier Post), And the value of References. Options

I would like to keep everything within the realm of known science. I would love to see a QUANTITATIVE (with math - that I can read) study which validates that men have more Iron in their "system" and that women have more "copper" in their system. Are we talking copper metal, copper compounds? cuprous oxides? ... and for iron - ferrous oxides? ferrous nitrate? ferrous sulfate? ... which chemicals are we talking about here. If we are going to bring science into the discussion we should CITE the document or literature which supports the claims being made. Second, if you are going to connect magic to science please do so with some grace and courtesy to scientists who are working exclusively in the boundaries of empiricism (i.e. none of this "women have more copper (unknown compound) than men, (how much more please provide statistics numbers charts graphs analysis of variance .... anything - in what part of the human anatomy or biology was this demonstrated ?? etc.) and this is why women are connected with or identified with Venus (the planet - the archetype - my roommates bunny named Venus ... what do you mean???) AND copper (obviously not a scientific conclusion). Please do not spout facts which have no basis in the literature.

666-Sirius-666

See what happens when one overzealous science fanatic with a penchant for being right joins our midst? Not that he necessarily is right. Just that he would like to think he is.

Sirius, your coming in here and spouting off what you have, in the way that you have, is entirely idiotic. Just because you think you know a little about science does not mean that you have any right to act like you're the only one who knows what's what.

This is an esoteric discussion website. You are not only out of place, but you are being an ass.

See what happens when one overzealous science fanatic with a penchant for being right joins our midst? Not that he necessarily is right. Just that he would like to think he is.

Sirius, your coming in here and spouting off what you have, in the way that you have, is entirely idiotic. Just because you think you know a little about science does not mean that you have any right to act like you're the only one who knows what's what.

This is an esoteric discussion website. You are not only out of place, but you are being an ass.

We're also a public forum where everyone is entitled to their opinions and approach - I made a statement which I, having heard it in a class room (see how well that appears to work out for doctors, much less auditing auto-didactics!) I took to be a common knowledge previously verified and added to text books; when in fact there is a range of opinions and results showing for and against that statement. A good point was made, in general, about citing sources, and for that matter discovering whether or not a particular 'fact' is actually a fact and to what extent it is a fact. All facts are not created equal, and from month to month some facts change based on new research. The issue arises I think when we begin tying together the occult with the scientific - two subjects sometimes complimentary and sometimes at odds, depending on the tradition of each; and science is as much a matter of tradition as the occult. Where possible, if we want to look for the underlying connections, we have to balance experience and tradition with 'known' facts if we want to explore a scientific basis for occult logic, and that means digging into those 'facts' and figuring out whether those connections hold up.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion as well, especially in fight club.

peace