And by the time you get to the show's simple, but-of-course conclusion, you feel that everything that has gone before has been mostly a sideshow, or distraction.
The latest lapse: Of course, conclusions like "no detrimental effect" or "did not have an adverse effect" are not ringing endorsements of static stretching and beg the obvious question: if brief stretches aren't bad for us, are they actively good?
And, of course, conclusions about patient satisfaction do not necessarily apply to quality of care, since satisfaction reflects lay judgments about quality and may not be accurate on technical matters.
The FT's Peter Spiegel makes the same point: Peter Spiegel (@SpiegelPeter) @fgoria Of course, draft conclusion said they would "complete" the single supervisory mechanism by end of 2012.
This is, of course, a conclusion that just about all econobloggers, and many Wall Street observers, will find improbable at best.
Of course, my conclusion is a leap of faith, based on experience.
Of course, this conclusion obtained in two dimensions and with the assumption of plane strains could be different with a three-dimensional model including the main faults present in the reservoir.
Of course, this conclusion runs counter to growing evidence.
There are remarkable parallels to the story that Angell unfolds in the Nora Volkow version of addiction -- except, of course, her conclusion is exactly the opposite one.
(Of course, this conclusion presupposes that people only get married because they've found the one and only love of their lives. That argument is questionable amidst the current divorce rate...but if it helps you sleep at night...) However, other women have expressed frustration about handing off a guy to his future wife.
Of course, this conclusion needs to be interpreted tentatively, given the non-clinical nature of the present sample and requires replication in those who are clinically anxious and depressed.
