Re: Croc classification (was Re: Sarcosuchus and Dumbing things down)

["Demetrios M Vital" <vita0015@umn.edu>]

I think my "Reply All" button isn't working, so here's another one.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Demetrios M Vital" <vita0015@umn.edu>
To: <steve_salisbury@bigpond.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Croc classification (was Re: Sarcosuchus and Dumbing things
down)


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Salisbury" <steve_salisbury@bigpond.com>
> To: "Dinolist" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Croc classification (was Re: Sarcosuchus and Dumbing things
> down)
>
>
> > What, you think because I'm a flat-earth loving, creationist hugging
> > anti-cladist I don't understand cladistics?  Or is the worry that I
don't
> > 'beleive' it?  Makes it sound like some kind of religion.  Don't you
think
> > that's a little dogmatic?
>
> I don't recall saying any of the above.  In fact, I specifically mentioned
> that those were just examples.  I never said _why_ I prefer the answer to
> come from a cladist, I just said that I do.  I don't believe any of what
you
> mentioned, nor do I think my statement implied any "dogma," nor did I say
> that you don't understand cladistics.  Please do not put words in my mouth
> (especially words like those...I don't want to get timed out for something
I
> _didn't_ say).
>
> I simply think that definitions pertaining to a specific field, be it
> cladistics or mechanical engineering, should come from inside that field.
> That applies here.  I was not attempting to insult anyone, least of all
the
> entirety of non-cladists on this list.
>
> ...Interestingly, there is a definite sense of "tradition" within
> non-cladism, as reported by non-cladists themselves :-)
>
> -Demetrios Vital
>