Re: AAT Questions...

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: J. Moore: "Re: Hominid speciation, w"
• Previous message: Jim Foley: "Re: Is Homo Habilis well represented?"
• Maybe in reply to: Sir CPU: "AAT Questions..."
• Next in thread: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: AAT Questions..."

J. Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com) sez:
` (I said:)
`Vi> I do not agree, however, with Jim Moore, who says that if there are no
`Vi> predictions about skeletal anatomy which can be made, the theory is
`Vi> `intellectually empty'.
`Vi> vincent@triumf.ca <== faster % Pete Vincent

`I certainly *did not* say this.
`Pete, please be more careful about putting words in peoples' mouths;
`it can make them testy.
`(Alex Duncan used the phrase "intellectually empty".)

Oops! Sorry. I hate it when that happens, I try to be more careful.
(I'm generally in agreement with the rest of your post.)

--

==========================================================================

    vincent@triumf.ca   <== faster       %    Pete Vincent

    vincent@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca      % Disclaimer: all I know I

                                         % learned from reading Usenet.

• Next message: J. Moore: "Re: Hominid speciation, w"
• Previous message: Jim Foley: "Re: Is Homo Habilis well represented?"
• Maybe in reply to: Sir CPU: "AAT Questions..."
• Next in thread: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: AAT Questions..."