Michael Lovejoy's dissected 'presentation' (If you can call it that. See below.) of my statement distorts the meaning of what I had said.
In case Julia Day is reading this, I repeat, verbatim, what I actually said, for her convenience:
"The claim of sauropod species diagnosis on the basis of footprints is
one that should be examined, but with a healthy grain of salt. If a
multi-species claim is not clearly substantiated by evidence presented in
the scientific paper, then the attention-evoking claim of having the first
evidence of multiple species herding is nothing but a sham."
I might more discretely have softened the statement and used the term, "wishful thinking", instead of "a sham"; but I stand by the original statement. It seems unfair for Michael to put the word "possibly" into my statement. He should know (if he is a good reader) very well that there is a subtle but very important difference in what I said compared what he, de facto, has me saying. I said IF (meaning that conditions would have to be met for it to be so)... There is an important difference.
This is supposed to be a list concerning dinosaur science. It therefore behooves one to be a fair witnesses when quoting the statements of anyone.
"You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles." -- Sherlock Holmes in The Boscombe Valley Mystery