On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:35:37 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<
jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>On 2/26/13 9:20 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:21:38 -0800, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>> <
jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>>
>>> On 2/25/13 10:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:56:41 -0800, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>>>> <
jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/24/13 10:46 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:35:50 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>>>>> <
pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 9:53 am, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:31:41 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>>>>>>> <
pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:46 am, John Harshman<
jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
>>>>>>>>>> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
>>>>>>>>>> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
>>>>>>>>>> it's the same old crap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think like me or be censored.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ....and yet the specific comment was that, even in a
>>>>>>>> peer-reviewed professional journal, dissenting opinion was
>>>>>>>> *not* censored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John expressed strong sentiment that Feduccia should not be given a
>>>>>>> microphone in said journal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, he did not; he expressed annoyance that Auk, a
>>>>>> peer-reviewed journal, provided a forum for
>>>>>> non-peer-reviewed opinion. Learn to read for comprehension.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to say it, but Ray is right in this instance.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree; see below.
>>>
>>> It seems odd that you feel qualified to disagree with me about what my
>>> opinion is. I can see that you might think I stated it unclearly the
>>> first time, but how can you think I don't know what I meant?
>>
>> I didn't; see below...
>>
>>>>> There is a place for
>>>>> non-peer-reviewed opinion pieces. But not all opinions should be given
>>>>> space. We can all agree (except Ray) that creationist opinion pieces
>>>>> have no place in the Auk. Feduccia's article is only slightly less bogus.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And even if he had, you still cling to the erroneous belief
>>>>>> that failure to provide a soapbox on demand from which to
>>>>>> rant constitutes censorship. It doesn't. The fact that one
>>>>>> is allowed to talk confers no obligation on *anyone* to
>>>>>> listen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that's right.
>>>>
>>>> If that's right then you weren't advocating censorship
>>>> (i.e., suppression); you were advocating not providing a
>>>> soapbox, especially one in a respected journal. I believe
>>>> neither of us would object to an article in National
>>>> Enquirer, which negates any claim of censorship. IMHO, of
>>>> course.
>>>
>>> True. But you "corrected" Ray when he said "John expressed strong
>>> sentiment that Feduccia should not be given a microphone in said
>>> journal." And said journal was not the National Enquirer. I wasn't
>>> claiming Ray was right about everything he said, just about that one
>>> statement.
>>
>> Ray's original statement, to which the one you cited was a
>> follow-up, was specifically about censorship;
>
>That was part of Ray's original statement, and was part of what you were
>replying to. We can agree that what I propose isn't censorship. But you
>also tried to correct Ray on the substance of what I propose, and in
>that you were wrong.
....as I acknowledged below. At least, that was my intent.
>> my comments
>> were intended to correct Ray specifically about the meaning
>> of censorship and whether your original comment could be
>> classified as such, and I assumed (mea culpa) that your
>> follow-up comment related to that rather than to Ray's
>> follow-up taken in isolation, and I didn't realize that "in
>> this instance" referred to *only* that comment, rather than
>> to the thread as a whole. Again, mea culpa, and sorry if
>> that wasn't clear.
>
>That wasn't clear at all. In fact, it's clearly contradicted by the
>structure of your post. Now in fact you had two paragraphs. The first
>paragraph says I didn't say what Ray thought I said, which was wrong. It
>was your second paragraph that addressed the meaning of censorship, and
>on that we agree. When you take issue with specifics, I assume you are
>taking issue with specifics. A point by point analysis, in which claimss
>are addressed individual rather than as a gestalt, has much to recommend
>it, and that's what you did. Don't backpedal now.
I'm not; I'm simply admitting I was incorrect in my
assumptions regarding the intent of your second response to
Ray, as apparently I was.
Can we agree that the following is an accurate summary?
Ray tacitly accused you of censorship.
I corrected him.
Ray responded that your statement was of "strong sentiment";
I interpreted this to mean that he believed that such
sentiment is equivalent to censorship, and commented
accordingly. (Note that I *should* have made the assumed
implied equivalence, which I think he still believes, clear,
and that I was responding to that.)
You said Ray was correct; I misunderstood that your comment
was specifically about Ray's claim of "strong sentiment",
rather than about the implied (to me, anyway) equivalence
with censorship.
I disagreed, but I was still thinking about the implied
equivalence, not about your statement regarding your
sentiment per se.
Which brings us to the latest round, in which I believe
we're now clear regarding who said what, but more
importantly who *meant* what.
Fair assessment?
>>>>>>>> Do you ever actually read (and more importantly, understand)
>>>>>>>> the posts to which you make ill-informed replies?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone can fact check and confirm that it's you who has not read with
>>>>>>> understanding, not me. You've opened your mouth without thinking----in
>>>>>>> goes the foot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Come back when you learn what "censorship" actually means.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless