|
|
Re: AAT and swimming
Jonathan E. Feinstein (jfeinstein@umassd.edu)
Sat, 10 Dec 1994 23:26:50 GMT
In article <3cbd7h$col@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, patdooley@aol.com (Pat Dooley) writes:
>In article <D0F403.523@umassd.edu>, dhaworth@umassd.edu writes:
>
>> Pat,
>
>> You're entitled to your own opinion, which I'm willing to respect,
>but
>>any conjecture regarding australopithecine noses (which are not so pure
>>considering that they are carefully based on the preserved portions of
>the
>>face in regards not only to the shapes of the noses of modern simians and
>
>>humans, but obvious points of muscle and cartilage attachment, the shapes
>>and angles of the faces and a whole host of other data) are not my own
>>but those far more experienced at fossil reconstruction than I ever will
>be.
>>If you care to debate with them, you are free to do so, but taking cheap
>>shots at me, or any other courteous member of this group isn't going to
>add
>>credibility to your arguments. Respond politely, and I promise to do the
>same.
>
>Heres what I said:
>
>>>Noses don't fossilise and the AAH people haven't been doing the
>>>reconstructing.
>>>Who's to say what Australopithecine noses looked like? Any comment on
>>>when the developed, in the absence of any theory of evidence, is pure
>>>conjecture
>>>on Jon's part.
>
>Well now, I am surprised to be accused of taking cheap shots. My, we live
>in a
>sensitive age. Must be that "pure conjecture" part. I'll withdraw the
>"pure".
Pat,
My point of umbrage was over the fact that you seemed to feel that
the conjecture was mine and mine alone, and my response was meant to say
that I had merely accepted what others, more qualified than I had
concluded. Still your response was more polite. My apologies if I went to
far in characterizing your initial statement as a "cheap thought."
Peace,
Jon.
---------------------
JFeinstein@umassd.edu
---------------------
Immortality is something you need to grow into.
|