Re: AAT and swimming

Jonathan E. Feinstein (
Sat, 10 Dec 1994 23:26:50 GMT

In article <3cbd7h$>, (Pat Dooley) writes:
>In article <>, writes:
>> Pat,
>> You're entitled to your own opinion, which I'm willing to respect,
>>any conjecture regarding australopithecine noses (which are not so pure
>>considering that they are carefully based on the preserved portions of
>>face in regards not only to the shapes of the noses of modern simians and
>>humans, but obvious points of muscle and cartilage attachment, the shapes
>>and angles of the faces and a whole host of other data) are not my own
>>but those far more experienced at fossil reconstruction than I ever will
>>If you care to debate with them, you are free to do so, but taking cheap
>>shots at me, or any other courteous member of this group isn't going to
>>credibility to your arguments. Respond politely, and I promise to do the
>Heres what I said:
>>>Noses don't fossilise and the AAH people haven't been doing the
>>>Who's to say what Australopithecine noses looked like? Any comment on
>>>when the developed, in the absence of any theory of evidence, is pure
>>>on Jon's part.
>Well now, I am surprised to be accused of taking cheap shots. My, we live
>in a
>sensitive age. Must be that "pure conjecture" part. I'll withdraw the


My point of umbrage was over the fact that you seemed to feel that
the conjecture was mine and mine alone, and my response was meant to say
that I had merely accepted what others, more qualified than I had
concluded. Still your response was more polite. My apologies if I went to
far in characterizing your initial statement as a "cheap thought."


Immortality is something you need to grow into.