|
|
Re: Guide for anti-AATers
cc3265@CNSVAX.ALBANY.EDU
14 Oct 1995 14:24:14 GMT
In article <45o2fu$2gl@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk writes:
>
> If you guys are really fed up with talking about AAT here, I'll agree to
>shut up about it if you can convince me that the following three points
>are irrelevant or can be better explained.
No, I'm not fed up personally -- I mean, there are a lot of posts to skip
by every day, but if people enjoy discussing this topic it's okay by
me -- I'll just keep bringing up other topics with other people. What I
personally object to is the unscientific direction a lot of this debate
has taken. Headings like "So-and-so is lazy and ignorant" or "What is
so-and-so's point" and so on and so on . . . do not have a place in a
scientific forum, I'm sorry, flame me if you must, but I did not make
up that protocol -- that's the way it's always been (though I know that
even the big names ignore this rule on occasion). I enjoy a good scientific
debate, that's why I'm here -- but scientific debate is NOT personal
insults -- (or personal opinion alone for that matter) it is done with
data, sources, references, and the like. You all know that, why do I have
to tell you?
As for those people who are angry just because you are talking about
AAT, well, they don't have to answer you, do they? It's their choice to
keep the debate going (I know I wouldn't miss the 15 or so posts a day on
it). A lot of them are extremely bright individuals who could always bring
up something more interesting.
Okay, I am now a standing target for both sides. :)
Caroline
|