Re: Apology to Ms. Morgan
Richard Foy (rfoy@netcom.com)
Mon, 8 Jul 1996 00:39:31 GMT
In article <CheetahPRO_v0.04_3854@desco.demon.co.uk>,
Elaine Morgan <elaine@desco.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <rfoyDsAzqv.GLw@netcom.com> rfoy@netcom.com wrote...
>
>> In article <4oo4nt$dnl@ra.cc.wwu.edu>, Phillip Bigelow <bh162@scn.org> wrote:
>> >rfoy@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>> >
>
>> >
>> >Just out of curiosity....
>> >After you had read about the research on Orangatans in Morgan's book, did
>> >you take what Elaine wrote at face value? And if you did take it at face
>> >value, .....why?
>
>Presumably because it was fully documented and he had no reason to
>distrust the sources I used. Have you any
>reason to?
>
>
>
>. A reference to a primary source does not
>> demonstrate a fact, it is only a pointer.
>>
>If you are not going to accept primary sources you are in shtook. You
>can say nothing about animal behaviour unless you have witnessed it with
>your own two eyes, nothing about internal anatomy unless you have
>persoanlly dissected a corpse...Why do scientific papers have those long
>lists of references if they are all going to be treated as suspect?
I thought I replied to his silly questions.
It is fascinating to me, but must be ectremely frstrating to you, how
so many people ask such rediculous, pointed, thinly disguised
insulting, questions.
Actually the apology was for a totally unfounded assumption on my
part about your motivations. It is sad that some of the posters here
don't look at their own motivations.
based on your first book
--
"The form is the content in motion, and the content is the form at
rest." --Northrup Frye
URL http://www.he.tdl.com/~hfanoe/udc.html Unity and Diversity
|