Re: Jim Moore's Cool web site

Richard Foy (
Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:14:55 GMT

In article <>, Phillip Bigelow <> wrote:
>Thomas Clarke wrote:
>> I just got done looking through Jim Moore's magnum opus.
>> Wow! What does he have against Elaine Morgan?
>Jim Moore, as well as myself, have nothing personal against Elaine
>Morgan. Rather, it is her sloppy analysis of scientific evidence, her
>misrepresentation of scientist's work, her over-generalizations of
>scientist's work, and her poor citation- and bibliography-skills that
>perpetually gets Elaine into trouble.
> Now...the reason Morgan is *specifically* dealt with is because she has
>written two pop-books that dealt with the AAT(H), as well as the fact
>that Morgan is one of the major AAT(H) proponents that has written on the
> The reason the Morgan's book writings and internet postings are
>critiqued, rather than critiquing the meaningless postings of some
>bizarre-thinking follower such as Paul Crowley, is because Crowley is
>small, insignificant game, and additionally, Crowley has no large-scale
>influence on the public. Morgan, on the other hand, has a rather large
>following of "believers". Influence, by it's very nature, attracts
>attention. And the critiquing of the content found in Morgan's books is
>justifiable because of this.
> Does that answer your question?

I don't know if it answers his quesiton.

However, I find that I and many of the people I know tend to believe
that when some one makes a personal attack on other people it
detracts from the substantive nature of their arguments. It sounds
too much like what the politicians do to add credabitlity.

"Do you know why Moses wandered in the wilderness for fourty years."(pause)
He was a man and men don't ask directions." --Nun in the play Nunsense

URL Womens Quotations