Yes, but when people talk about it today they are basically talking about magic. I know pagans who claim to be alchemists and they know shit-all about chemistry.

Not really. You weren't conducting a controlled study and you had strong emotional attachment to your relatively tiny (1/16 the size) sample group of a different type of octopus. Like I said, her evidence seems stronger.

No it doesn't. His evidence is weak and unscientific, that's why it's called anecdotal.

She was using Octopus tetricus. Study involved Octopus rubescens- perhaps this also accounts for the disparity.

While we are all entitled to state our opinions, I'd tend to value a scientific study involving 32 subjects over your two-subject anecdotal observation of pets.

That doesn't mean your wrong, but her evidence seems stronger.

This is doublespeak. One moment they are worried they might be seen to "endorse or support" the gaming convention- next they are simply blaming it on their lack of involvement. Which is the truth? Do they truly only accept donations from organizations with which they are "involved"? Let's face it- they don't condone gaming or gaming conventions, to the degree they are afraid to accept donations from them. That shows serious bias no matter that ridiculous self-contradictory disclaimer.