Re: Martin 2004 critique (somewhat lengthy)

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:

<I think I've seen it in both places... anyway, it's pretty obvious Martin 
hasn't read the Ostrom Symposium volume either.>

  There's not reading it, then there's ignoring it. There is an ugly truth in
people and that is they will ignore data which will often conflict with what
they beleive to be correct or the right course to take. So Martin can read and
read every paper used to tout the benefits of cladistics and dinosaur origins
of birds, but you can call it crap and never cite it in support or in
refutation of your arguments due to its use. If all you're citing if one little
bit of contradicting data to disprove, all you need to do is cite the original
source and not the controversy that arose from it in the intervening decade of
literature, research or no. So let's not ascribe inactions we are not aware of
and simply argue the facts as they are KNOWN.

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


                
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html