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

Re: Specimen availibility

Chris Brochu wrote...
> Most of Peter Larson's claims (in my view) are incorrect.  But let's be
> fair here.  He didn't just make his claims up - he had legitimate reasons
> for each and every one of them.  They weren't just "misleading."  I
> disagree with him on several points, but I do not for a minute think he
> inventing observations; I would only go so far as to claim he was
> misinterpreting some features - an accusation many have levelled against

    The word "misleading" was applied to any mistaken idea, theory, etc...
being offered in a publication.  I was not implying a deliberate attempt by
Larson or anyone else to mislead.  I was also making the point that whether
or not Larson is correct or incorrect is very much open to discussion, and
can only be explored since Sue is availible for study.  I was playing
Devil's advocate two ways in suggesting that either Larson or yourself could
be right or wrong, and that the wrong one's published ideas could never be
adequately challanged and worked over if Sue was in private ownership.  This
was intended as a general point about the neccesity of published specimens
being available, not a snipe against Larson in particular.  I could have
picked any number of examples with a little digging, Sue is just the one
which came to mind.

A psychic is an actor playing the role of a psychic.
-Psychologist-magician Daryl Bem

It is only possible to live happily ever after on a day to day basis.
-Margaret Bonnano
Jeffrey W. Martz
Graduate student, Department of Geosciences, Texas Tech University
3002 4th St., Apt. C26
Lubbock, TX 79415