[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Patagium attachment Was: Re: Pterosaur.net
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:21:52 -0800
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Patagium attachment Was: Re: Pterosaur.net
>>> I hate "reasons." And so should you. Evidence should
>> always trump "reasons." There was good "reason" to put the
>> pteroid in the cup of the preaxial carpal. Just no
>> Come on now, I think we all know that when Mark said
>> "reasons" in that context, he meant the evidence supplied in
>> the literature. I certainly understood the
>> connotation, and I think everyone else did, too - there's no
>> reason to play the semantics game.
> No semantics game involved. Seriously. And if "evidence supplied in the
> literature" is going to be used as a "reason" some of that has been falsified
> in the literature, yet it still resurfaces. Please don't send me back to the
> literature. I've been there. Send me evidence.
What's the postage rate on fossils these days? is it still .30 US?
so why do you consider literature the only falsifiable thing?
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.