Re: Details on 2002 Part 3 at last!

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Michael Lovejoy wrote-

> Mickey Mortimer wrote, quoting Ford 2002: "Scientists utilizing cladistics
> must adhere to unreasonable restraints, such as having evidence for their
> hypotheses"
>
> Ford's right, dammit! I'm fed up with adhering to unreasonable restraints
> like needing evidence for my hypotheses...let's give up on cladistics and
> all our wild ideas will suddenly become valid!
>
> Seriously though, he didn't really say that at SVP, did he?

It seems people didn't pay attention to the date very much on 4-1-2004.  My
entire message was an April Fools joke.  The two SVP 2002 summaries were
completely lacking in factual detail (I wouldn't actually risk the legal
onslaught of the SVP), while Ford's abstract was fictional, albeit based on
a "debate" we had on Pickering's Yahoo Group and concurrent with my view of
his methodology.  His actual SVP 2002 poster was on the skull of
Tanystropheus, which looked nice, though I lack the knowledge to comment
usefully on it.  I thought the fictional abstract was too ridiculous for
people to actually question its artificiality, but seems I can't be too
sure.

Now to go about informing those who requested "Mortimer, 2004. A phylogeny
of Neotetanurae" that such a paper won't exist for a few years at least.
Now THAT should have been an obvious fake.  I mean, 100 taxa?  I already
have 158.  And why would I use Archaeopterygiformes instead of
Deinonychosauria?  The day I publish Aenigmodracones... well, let's just say
you won't see it any time soon.  Go Enigmosauria!
*runs away*

Mickey Mortimer