Ralph Chapman wrote under "Feduccia and friends" on 26th June 98:
< Regarding secondary flightlessness, sorry but the same thing
applies - do the [philogenetic] analyses, otherwise it will be stay a basically
unsupported idea only. >
I can't speak for G & G but if they're anything like me, it would feel a bit odd dressing up in the emperor's new clothes to impress others - when much of the problem was caused by "philogenetic analysis" in the first place. (Note here the use of the term "P.A.". This gives the impression of being a worthy scientific approach, but is actually a fashionable computerised procedure, based on a useful guiding principle but driven way past its usefulness, often relying on circular logic, and running on nothing but subjectively selected data. It also prevents circumstantial evidence from being taken into account, but it's main fault is that it claims to be more than it is.)
The main gripe of the "2ry Flightlessness" folk though, is that their theory is NEVER EVER given ANY time at all in the scientific press. Surely 50:50 would be fair, especially now it's reached the dizzy heights of being accepted as "Just another theory"?
By the way, did you notice that G & G are free thinkers in more than one sense - they aren't true products of (and I hope they'll forgive me for saying this) the palaeontological educational establishment. Neither is Luis Rey. In fact, I don't know of any "2ry flightlessist" who is. There will be big kudos for the first establishment figure to break ranks and start treating it as the null hypothesis.
Oh yes they will!