Re: Plea for restraint... was re:AAT etc.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: J. Moore: "Re: AAT Theory"
• Previous message: Rich Travsky: "Re: does hubey have a point?"
• Maybe in reply to: Bill Burnett: "Plea for restraint... was re:AAT etc."
• Next in thread: jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk: "Re: Plea for restraint... was re:AAT etc."

In article <bbur.21.0009EC53@wpo.nerc.ac.uk>, bbur@wpo.nerc.ac.uk (Bill Burnett) writes:
>
>This thread has gotten out of control and has become completely unreadable
>lately. No one has time to read dozens of postings with the same subject
>line (many by the same author) most of which are petty squabbling...
>
>Keep these posts on email and keep your egos off the net... And can we
>have some SCIENCE please?

Here! Here! I was wondering what all that name-calling was doing in a
scientific forum, but I've taken to resignedly scrolling quickly past all
that stuff.
Caroline

• Next message: J. Moore: "Re: AAT Theory"
• Previous message: Rich Travsky: "Re: does hubey have a point?"
• Maybe in reply to: Bill Burnett: "Plea for restraint... was re:AAT etc."
• Next in thread: jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk: "Re: Plea for restraint... was re:AAT etc."