Re: Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus (Was Re: Novel way to reconstruct a skull) -Reply

[Rude Wolf <rudewolf@flash.net>]

Amen & thank you.
Mickey should indeed burn him for such inexcusable behavior.

Ralph Chapman wrote:

> Sorry George but your original statement was TOTALLY out of line.
> When you suggest someone is capable of something like fraud and, in so
> doing, cast doubt on something he has done, you have done the same
> damage as directly accusing him of it; the differences are only subtle if
> they exist at all. It was wrong, period.
>
> >From a professional viewpoint, this is about as bad a thing as you can
> infer about someone's work and, without suporting evidence, it always
> casts the accuser in very bad light. If I were the list owner, frankly, I'd
> time you out for a month and only let you back for a probationary period. I
> guess it just isn't clear to you how serious the statement you made is.
> Reputation regarding the veracity of one's research is the most important
> thing a researcher has because all research can be faked in one form or
> another. Questioning this is something to be done only when there is
> solid evidence of a problem. Damage is possible not only  when you say
> fraud has happened, but also when you say someone is capable of
> fraud. It's really said the same thing about a person.
>
> Whatever anyone's differences are with Bob, they are not an excuse to
> suggest fraud by him, or the possibility of it, without evidence. Knowing
> him, I really can't imagine him purposely faking a morphology; he is too
> enraptured with real dinosaur morphology to have to fake it. Perhaps
> seeing what he wants or expects to see in a specimen sometime - but
> we all can do that from overenthusiasm, as attested by all sides of the
> bird-dino and Sinosauropteryx debate. But faking a specimen, no way.
>
> The last line in the quote below, the *possibility* line, is especially low
> and inuendo-ish. Senator McCarthy lived and thrived on inuendo to ruin
> peoples lives and reputations and it should not be tolerated here.
>
> I would hope list contributors would refrain from direct personal attacks
> on various people from now on. Discussion is fine, but some of the
> statements in the past have been very perjorative and incredibly abusive
> and, in my opinion,  have no place on the list. It bothers me to have to
> reply here so directly to George, but his statement is a major problem
> which I believe must be confronted. Say whatever you want about
> dinosaurs and live with the feedback. Be careful what you say about
> other people, however.
>
> Ralph Chapman
>
> >>> <Dinogeorge@aol.com> 06/11/98 11:37am >>>
> In a message dated 98-06-11 06:13:26 EDT, jwoolf@erinet.com writes:
>
> << No matter how much anyone dislikes Bakker and his antics, publicly
> accusing
> him
>  of deliberate fraud is far beyond the realm of acceptability. >>
>
> Read what I said before flying off the handle. Nobody is accusing
> anybody of
> fraud. But the >possibility< does exist.



--
Fight Fugue----remain irrational