Re: Olson calls Stringer ignorant & stupid (Re: "Why do biologists avoid writing about AAT?"

Op 19-09-2007 05:52, in artikel
1190173946.086311.311990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, the imbecile who
called Chris Stringer ignorant & stupid now says <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> :


My little boy, your only argument below is: I'm waiting for AATers to
publish in peer-reviewed journals.

Doughboy, we know what the amateur AATers publish: "? and opinions."
What is needed is professional papers.

Sigh. Again for the 100th time (why not inform a little little bit, my
boy?): they gave me the choice: writing a review paper or an opinion paper.
Okidoki, little boy?

Dont you even know that peer-review = conservatism??
Peer-review is excellent for old ideas that have to be fine-tuned, but peer
review doesn't allow radically new ideas.

New? 47 years is new?

O years, my boy: no anthropol.journal ever accepted an AAT paper
(John Langdon's irrelevant blabla can't be call an AAT paper).

PA journals refuse to publish papers pro-AAT

I never asked about PA journals, I asked why no biology journals
argued AAT.

My little boy, ever heard of TREE = Trends in Ecology & Evolution? Even
never heard of the "Trends" journals?? And you claim to produce science,
you fool. Keep runing after kudus, my boy. Already found your list of
publications?? :-DDD

.

Quantcast