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

RE: Czerkas' book- Analysis and Criticisms

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Jaime A. Headden
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:41 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Cc: dinonaut@emerytelcom.net
Subject: Re: Czerkas' book- Analysis and Criticisms

Cliff Green (dinonaut@emerytelcom.net) wrote:

<I don't think you exactly caught what I was trying to get across. Your
response is confusing to me. I have never met any of the Backstreet boys,
but I hate them personally, and say so as ocassion permits. Saying that
someone is crazy, twice, in what amounts to a book report, not to mention
the other slurs, is personal, whether you want to 'fess up or not.>

  And we're talking about not insulting in this post? "Book report" and
"Backstreet Boys" ... please.>>

<By the way, I am curious about something. How is it that you are
qualified to be the standing authority on what is considered professional
or not? Is there a standard guide to writing scientific papers that
Czerkas et al didn't stand up to?>

  Actually, yes. There is. They teach a class in college called Science
Writing where basic scientific formats are employed. Or did you ever
wonder why most scientific papers follow a similar format?<<

Great that they teach that class. But I've never gone to college and I've
had several papers published with out that class. Much to the chagrin of Ken
Carpenter :), alls I've ever done is read articles and followed that format
(I hope those authors had taken that class).

 >>That is: abstract, introduction, discussion, conclusion, references. The
must be logical and follow a scientifc, testable basis. In the description
of a taxon, it should be reasonably compared and described so as to limit
the neccessity of having to go to wherever to do it yourself. A theory of
the form and/or its phylogenetics follows. I know before I describe a
fossil I will describe its geology and taphonomy first, then the fossil,
then theories on it without trying to "bunk" other theories. You simply
present data, and implicate this data into hypothesis, test, continue.
There really aren't any other ways to do it.

<I will be more blunt with what I was trying to say. You are correct that
you are intitled to your opinions. Just please turn down the insults. They
are way to loud.>

  And as you are entitled to yours. However, this list is none too slow in
keeping check on those who make ad hominem comments, and Mickey's were,
though close, not so "questionable" as to warrant the antipathy offered in
the first sentence of Cliff's post.<<

I agree with Cliff on this one.

  >>Cliff, I didn't see you speak up when posts were offered from Frey and
Holtz calling the writing "horrible" and "unpublishable", the science
"bad" and "poor." Zhang Fucheng decried the practices of Stephen Czerkas,
which his wife Sylvia defended, but I saw nothing from you decrying these
indeed more "personal" posts which were, nonetheless, civil. I do think
Mickey's post went a little low, but it was far from uncivil and against
the rules we list members work under.<<

There is a big difference between someone writing the author is Crazy as
apposed to "horrible or unpublishable". Believe me I know, just check out
what I've gone through on this very list in the archives. I've gone threw a
lot of grief from the administration over it, but the favored son gets away
with it (or so it seems).


Jaime A. Headden

Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074