Re: David Marjanovic

[Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>]

david peters <davidrpeters@earthlink.net> writes:

> DP > In addition, the record of Wang and Zhou is not good with 
> regard to
> > identifying pterosaurs and parts of pterosaurs.


> DM >>>>. Ad hominem argument. Pseudoscientific.  [I fixed an
attribution error...<pb>]


DP > A track record is a track record.
 

I note (with one eyebrow raised for dramatic effect) that this is the
same claim that Dave Unwin made of some of your conclusions.    ;-)

With the greatest respect directed to you and Dave Unwin, I think you are
<ahem...gulp>  both wrong.  If an author's track record on a particular
subject is a reliable indicator of the veracity of the author's 
conclusions, then ALL first-time authors' papers would be poo-pooed as
irrelevent.  But many authors who are new to a subject have indeed
written authoritative papers on that subject.

[I mean "first-time author" as someone who is new to the *subject*, not
necessarily new to publishing.  Cross-over researchers are one example.]

Then of course, there are people like the famed astronomer Fred Whipple,
who considered Archaeopteryx's plumage to be a hoaxer's creation, and a
marine biologist named Hardy who thought that hominids were aquatic
beasts.  So there are also examples which show that crossover authors do
occasionally write cr*p.

cheerfully (and with no dog in this fight),

<pb>
--









________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!