Re: Polly Want a Dinosaur?

[Danvarner@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-11-05 17:05:35 EST, Thomas Holtz writes:

<< 
 Not to sound like a broken record, but could people please wait to get the
 details (as in "read the paper")?  Stidham *explicitly* compares it to
 caenagnathid material, and finds many significant differences.  He also
 finds some psittaciform synapomorphies on the specimen.
 
 Not that skepticism isn't the key to science (it is, and I am a very keen
 fan of it), but could people please wait to see the various papers and
 analyses before assuming the authors didn't already think of this or that
 particular point?
 
 [I hope that something comes along soon so I can be posting positive, rather
 than negative, comments on the list... :-S].
  >>

  Perhaps we might need a Solomon-like ruling from Mickey here, but I thought
that this was pretty much an informal forum. Otherwise, why is Von Sholly
here? As Adam Yates mentioned here earlier today, some of us might have to
wait for months to get a chance  to see a given paper. Some might never see it
at all. You are very fortunate to be on top of all this, Tom, and even perhaps
get a paycheck for your efforts along these lines. I've even noted that, on
more than one occasion, that you have let us know that are privy to inside
poop that the rest of us must wait patiently for the time that is right.
  What is wrong with asking a question or making a comment about a topic that
appears here on the list? If the question or comment is wrong-headed or off-
base surely someone will correct it or add comments of their own. If this list
is restricted to discussions only by those who have read the pertinent
publications, I have a feeling you're going to get pretty lonesome. Unless, of
course, you'll Xerox the pubs and send them to us. I'd go for that! Dan
Varner.