Re: Fact, opinion or just BUNK?

[Robert.J.Meyerson@uwrf.edu (Rob Meyerson)]

>I do not think it takes that much more
>effort to say "Deinonychus was, in my opinion, secondarily flightless" than
>it does to say "Deinonychus was secondarily flightless" - and I think that
>you certainly know enough to tell when such a qualifier is warranted.  This
>doesn't mean that your opinion is bunk - it may well be right - but in that
>it does not represent the orthodox or most widely accepted view I think it
>needs the qualifier.

I disagree.  The whole idea behind any science is to take the established=
 ideas, assume that they are probably wrong, and do research to try to come=
 up with a better model.  So what if someone comes up with something that=
 goes against the conventional ideas, this is irrelevant (it suggests that=
 anything unconventional is wrong).

Besides, in this forum, the conventional views will come out anyway.

Rob

***
"Don't panic!"