Re: Aquatic Ape: Titanic Effect

NICHOLLS PHILIP A (pn8886@thor.albany.edu)
Sun, 1 May 94 23:31:20 GMT

In article <2q1415$5ia@netnews.upenn.edu> mlchang@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Melanie L Chang) writes:

[quotes from Phil and David deleted]

>Am I the only one who thinks the level of maturity on this group has taken
>a nosedive?

Yeah, your right. David was right, I do need a vacation and fortunately
the semester is almost over. I apologize to David for personal insults
that may have slipped from my fingers and to the readers of this group for
having to endure them. I will stop.

I will not stop discussing the aquatic ape, however, and I do not think
that refering to it as pseudoscience is insulting IF it fits a reasonable
definition of pseudoscience. Since any definition I would offere would
be viewed as tainted perhaps you could provide one. What is pseudoscience?
Are we agreed that works like "Worlds in Collision," "Chariots of the Gods?"
and "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" are pseudoscience? Are we agreed that
astrology, scientific creationism and astromytology are pseudosciences?

-- 

Philip Nicholls                   "To ask a question,

Department of Anthropology         you must first know

SUNY Albany                        most of the answer."

pn8886@thor.albany.edu