[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus (Was Re: Novel way to reconstruct a skull) -Reply

Sorry George but your original statement was TOTALLY out of line.
When you suggest someone is capable of something like fraud and, in so
doing, cast doubt on something he has done, you have done the same
damage as directly accusing him of it; the differences are only subtle if
they exist at all. It was wrong, period.

>From a professional viewpoint, this is about as bad a thing as you can
infer about someone's work and, without suporting evidence, it always
casts the accuser in very bad light. If I were the list owner, frankly, I'd
time you out for a month and only let you back for a probationary period. I
guess it just isn't clear to you how serious the statement you made is.
Reputation regarding the veracity of one's research is the most important
thing a researcher has because all research can be faked in one form or
another. Questioning this is something to be done only when there is
solid evidence of a problem. Damage is possible not only  when you say
fraud has happened, but also when you say someone is capable of
fraud. It's really said the same thing about a person.

Whatever anyone's differences are with Bob, they are not an excuse to
suggest fraud by him, or the possibility of it, without evidence. Knowing
him, I really can't imagine him purposely faking a morphology; he is too
enraptured with real dinosaur morphology to have to fake it. Perhaps
seeing what he wants or expects to see in a specimen sometime - but
we all can do that from overenthusiasm, as attested by all sides of the
bird-dino and Sinosauropteryx debate. But faking a specimen, no way.

The last line in the quote below, the *possibility* line, is especially low
and inuendo-ish. Senator McCarthy lived and thrived on inuendo to ruin
peoples lives and reputations and it should not be tolerated here.

I would hope list contributors would refrain from direct personal attacks
on various people from now on. Discussion is fine, but some of the
statements in the past have been very perjorative and incredibly abusive
and, in my opinion,  have no place on the list. It bothers me to have to
reply here so directly to George, but his statement is a major problem
which I believe must be confronted. Say whatever you want about
dinosaurs and live with the feedback. Be careful what you say about
other people, however.

Ralph Chapman

>>> <Dinogeorge@aol.com> 06/11/98 11:37am >>>
In a message dated 98-06-11 06:13:26 EDT, jwoolf@erinet.com writes:

<< No matter how much anyone dislikes Bakker and his antics, publicly
 of deliberate fraud is far beyond the realm of acceptability. >>

Read what I said before flying off the handle. Nobody is accusing
anybody of
fraud. But the >possibility< does exist.