Re: pseudoscience and fossils

Scott H Mullins (
12 Jan 1995 23:38:59 GMT

In article <3f4a1l$> (Robert J. Cokel) writes:
>Scott H Mullins ( wrote:
>: The real question that I wanted to ask, Mr. Bigelow, was this:
>: is it really necessary that you act like such an ass? Really,
>: the attempt to paint the AAT with Velikovskian paint is a weak
>: and unctuous rhetorical ploy. You're not a lawyer, are you?

>As an observer, and not a player here, I have enjoyed reading the
>debates, because they are usually well thought out, and without rancor.

Then we obviously disagree on this one bit of rhetoric. I
thought, and still think, that Mr. Bigalow's insinuations about
advertising, Velikovsky, etc. were in bad taste, unnecessary,
and damaging to his credibility. YMMV.

>This paragraph fails miserably, Scott, perhaps you should calm down
>before responding?

I am calm. Perhaps you should refrain from commenting on
the state of mind of the people to whom you are responding.
The paragraph fails in what way, exactly? Does it
fail in some way that Mr. Bigelow's missive did not?
I note that you did not specifically defend Mr. Bigelow's