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

Re: Czerkas' book- Analysis and Criticisms

Dear Jaime and List,

    Because you are questioning me personally about a few things, I would
like to answer you in the same fashion.

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

    My comments about the backstreet boys was meant to make a point using
humor instead of malice. Sorry if you didn't catch it. Mickey's post WAS a
book report. There were no barbed comments on my part.

    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? That is:
> abstract, introduction, discussion, conclusion, references. The premises
> 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.

    Thanks for the information. I will take it to heart. I read the book,
and as far as I am concerned, they did follow your above described criteria.
Have you read it?

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.

    your slur o meter seems to be a little more liberal than mine. ( Yes,
that was pure unfiltered sarcasm. ) And again, I wasn't being antipathic in
my opening sentences.

>   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."

    TMK, No posts were offered by Dino Frey. What we did get, was Luis,
after a Party, telling every one what Frey supposedly told him. I have
spoken to Sylvia Czerkas about this, and she can back up Dino Frey's
indorsement with paper work, minus Luis's alleged cross outs on the
manuscript. I was also informed that the Czerkases and Tom Holtz disagree on
about  90 percent of everything. If they said the sky was blue he would
probably say it was green, and vice versa.  So what. I never said critique
and debate were of the devil.
    Once again, just to be clear, my beef isn't list members disagreeing
with the Czerkases. I am not thier agent, and I don't agree with all thier
theories either. My problem is throwing personal insults at others because
they don't agree with our scientific opinions.

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.

    Hey, we are all just spinning here together on Spaceship Earth. We are
going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Cheers right back at you.

Cliff Green