[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Fact, opinion or just BUNK?
In a message dated 95-12-02 15:38:05 EST, firstname.lastname@example.org (Ronald
>I think you are taking this more personally than it was intended, and are
>missing Ken's point here (and as he is a schoolteacher I think he knows
>whereof he speaks). All I was trying to say originally was that if we post
>statements that we know are not widely accepted or are the subject of
>controversy, we should say so. I do not think it takes that much more
>effort to say "Deinonychus was, in my opinion, secondarily flightless" than
>it does to say "Deinonychus was secondarily flightless" - and I think that
>you certainly know enough to tell when such a qualifier is warranted. This
>doesn't mean that your opinion is bunk - it may well be right - but in that
>it does not represent the orthodox or most widely accepted view I think it
>needs the qualifier.
Yeah, well, everything I post is really neither more nor less than my
opinion. So why bother with the qualifiers? They just slow down the text and
ruin the emphasis. And they slow down my keyboarding.
Or should I say, "In my opinion, I feel that they just slow down the text, as
it were, and seemingly ruin the emphasis." Etc.
Lots of orthodox dinosaurology is quite correct, but some of it is BUNK, even
if it gets into the textbooks and everyone believes it to be true.