[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Peers or Piss Ants? (was Re:THEROPOD LUNG UNREALITY (LONG))
At 04:27 AM 11/28/97 GMT, Roger A. Stphenson wrote:
>>We could go on to refute all of GSP's objections, but in the interest of
>time we need to devote most of our energies to the peer-reviewed literature.<
>Do "we" members of this forum seem of such intellectual unimportance that
>we cannot be considered "peers"? Is an apparently well thought out
>response, such as Mr. Paul's, so trivial that it is below Mr. Jones to
>respond in an appropriately professional manner?
I'm assuming that the "we" refers to the entire team of Jones, Ruben and
anybody else that was involved with the project.
For some of us, this forum is pretty much the only source of information
we have, save for the occaisional begging of copies of really, really
important articles. The peer reviewed literature is either not available at
local newstands, or have prohibitively expensive subscription rates ($250
for the occaisional dinosaur related article in _Science_ is a bit much, as
is the $7 per article fee).
Recently, I received an e-mail from Dr. Ruben lightly chiding me for the
bias of _Dinosauria On-Line_. Specifically, he asked if I ever "allowed"
dissenting viewpoints to be aired. Given that, I was amazed at Jones
reluctance to air the group's views. Because Jones refuses to refute Paul's
points here, only Paul's viewpoints will be aired to the casual populace,
and the bias continues.
** Dinosauria On-Line. Home of THE DINOSTORE ** "Those who trade a **
** (Dino stuff for sale), Jeff's Journal of ** little freedom for a **
** Dinosaur Paleontology, Jeff's Dinosaur ** little security will soon **
** Picture Gallery, and The DOL Dinosaur ** find they have none of **
** Omnipedia. http://www.dinosauria.com ** either." -- Jeff Poling **