Re: Aquatic eccrine sweating ref request, was Re: tears

Phillip Bigelow (
13 Nov 1995 16:58:44 -0800

>>In article <47u5pg$>
>> "Phillip Bigelow" writes:

>>> Consider that, by her own admission, she has not had any serious
>>> peer-review by her adversaries.
>>> Consider that her books on the AAT are reviewed only for grammatical
>>> content by her editors, NOT for the science contained there-in.
>>> Consider that she does not attend paleoanthropological meetings to present
>>> papers and be butchered by her peers (as any other paleoanthropologist must
>>> endure).

Paul Crowley <> writes:
>>You misconstruing the nature of this debate, Phil. AAT stuff does not
>>get "serious peer-review"; it does not get scientific editorializing;
>>Ms Morgan does not get invited to PA meetings. She would never be
>>allowed to present papers at them. Consequently there are no, or few,
>>"authoritative" papers for references. It's usually silly to ask.

I think we agree on the premise of the debate: that Ms. Morgan is
ignored by the professional community. We disagree on the result. are claiming that because Ms. Morgan is ignored by the
professionals, that she can (and does) get away with not providing accurate
and full citations when asked to by a critic?
You seem to be supporting Ms. Morgan's desire to continue to dodge bullets
sent by serious people who want to check up on what she writes.
I think that, BECAUSE she is ignored by the professionals, she should make
every attempt to ACT like one anyway....and that means writing like a scientist. Elaine needs all the credibility and help that she can get. She won't get
it from her followers. There is nothing in it for her to knock herself out
for the already-converted.