Re: Aquatic Ape: Titanic Effect

Sun, 1 May 94 23:31:20 GMT

In article <2q1415$> (Melanie L Chang) writes:

[quotes from Phil and David deleted]

>Am I the only one who thinks the level of maturity on this group has taken
>a nosedive?

Yeah, your right. David was right, I do need a vacation and fortunately
the semester is almost over. I apologize to David for personal insults
that may have slipped from my fingers and to the readers of this group for
having to endure them. I will stop.

I will not stop discussing the aquatic ape, however, and I do not think
that refering to it as pseudoscience is insulting IF it fits a reasonable
definition of pseudoscience. Since any definition I would offere would
be viewed as tainted perhaps you could provide one. What is pseudoscience?
Are we agreed that works like "Worlds in Collision," "Chariots of the Gods?"
and "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" are pseudoscience? Are we agreed that
astrology, scientific creationism and astromytology are pseudosciences?

Philip Nicholls "To ask a question,
Department of Anthropology you must first know
SUNY Albany most of the answer."