[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Stopping the paleoartist flame war.
---"D.I.G." <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> No one is "stopping it."
What, then, are we to surmise from the title "Stopping the paleoartist
> And it is quite clear that you intend to
> continue contending.
I contend that there is nothing contentious in contending.
> May I ask, however, what the "Paleontological"
> purpose of this all is?
My posts have been in response to your own criticism of Brian's method
of analysis. Please help us to understand, then, how your posts were
somehow "Paleontological" and others were not.
> If you go back to the archive and read the series of posts in this
> specific thread carefully, you may understand that my intention and, I
> believe that of others, was to clarify the nature of the "research"
> behind a given piece of art, rather than to argue for the
> appropriateness of one term or another for the artist
No. Here's what happened. You hijacked Brian's original post:
and told us what we SHOULD discuss:
Unfortunately, we're interested in discussing what we started
discussing, an issue of terminology relating to dinosaur art. So
we'll continue to discuss it. Sorry.
> My intention, specifically, for commenting, is to get this "unstuck."
Is it "stuck" because we're not discussing what you want us to discuss?
How dreary it is to have to point this all out. Again. Why is it
"flaming" to observe (again) that it's ok to discuss this point on
this list? If you want to discuss something else, go right ahead and
start your own thread. Hopefully no one will complain that you really
should be discussing something else.
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com