|
|
Re: Jim Moore's Cool web site
Richard Foy (rfoy@netcom.com)
Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:14:55 GMT
In article <31C9F051.1F34@scn.org>, Phillip Bigelow <bh162@scn.org> 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
>subject.
> 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 http://www.he.tdl.com/~hfanoe/womquote.html Womens Quotations
|