"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0408041928.9d76866@posting.google.com...
Robert Weldon <rweldon.spamblock@jrpspamblock.ca> wrote in message
news:<L18Qc.10574$J06.8226@pd7tw2no>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0408040403.59a1a2c1@posting.google.com...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message
news:<892cb437.0408032258.7241b93f@posting.google.com>...
-snipped for bulk
So we should take you seriously when you make comments about
plesiosaurs.
For what reasons, i.e. upon what basis, should we take you seriously
if and when you make comments about any of the following?:
evolution.
creation versus evolution.
spontaneous generation/ abiogenesis.
religion.
ethics.
physics.
chemistry.
biology.
politics.
astronomy.
environmental issues.
cars.
ham radios.
Windows.
So, using your logic as demonstrated above, we should take your comments
seriously, for what subjects?
The [RW]"logic" is not mine, but Richard Forrest's, he stating:
RF> Tell you what, David.
Rewrite your essay as a scientific paper (you can find excellent
guidance on how to do that here
http://www.scidev.net/ms/howdoi/index.cfm?pageid=60). Submit it to a
journal of your choice (and I'd avoid the creationist journals -
they
are not scientific), take note of the reviewers comments, rewrite
appropriately, and get it published.
RF> Then perhaps we'll start taking you seriously.
Umm, no, sorry, it's your logic. You demanding Richard provide academic
proof of his credibility to comment, which he did, establishing his
credentials on plesiosaurs, at which time you questioned how this qualifies
him on the many other subjects you mentioned. I was merely asking you to
provide us the same courtesy. I am still waiting.
.
