Probably because science hasn't completely abandoned the idea that anecdotal evidence has value. To site one example: Medical case reporting, a form of anecdotal evidence, is still considered by many to lead to valuable science.

IBM's PC BIOS didn't need to be reverse engineered; it was published and sold by IBM along with the PC's schematics in the technical docs for the machine.

But only on Sunday, SUNDAY, SSUUUNNNNNNNDAAAAY~!!!!!

lol!! It's not the same recipe, but it's still technically concrete.

FYI, the parent was indicating that the recipe might have been altered in the past two hundred years or so. I was pointing out that an even greater time frame existed in which to have different recipes emerge. There's nothing in my post to indicate otherwise.

Which leads me to ask: Do you seriously believe any of us to credit you with any semblance of social skills?

You were asked to produce a citation and failed to do so; citing your own research doesn't count for squat.

Here's a citation I just pulled from the National Cancer Institute's website:

"Quitting smoking substantially reduces the risk of developing and dying from cancer, and this benefit increases the longer a person remains smoke free. However, even after many years of not smoking, the risk of lung cancer in former smokers remains higher than in people who have never smoked"

Emphasis placed there by me.

So, unless you can produce a contrary citation, I think it's pretty safe to say you're a pathetic troll spreading misinformation.

Ice Weasel isn't the same thing as Firefox; they don't share the exact same code base. Also, the last time I used it, Ice Weasel still had some really screwy bugs to contend with that are not present in FireFox. Which sorta of drives home the gp's point.