Re: Melted copper found Labrador dated 11th century

From: Tom McDonald (tmcdonald2672_at_charter.net)
Date: 06/05/04


Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 23:44:43 -0500

Inger E Johansson wrote:

> "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.net.au> skrev i meddelandet
> news:40C12CFA.53A192C4@not.net.au...

<snip>

>>Tom does say he agrees with the facts presented by Kim in his paper.
>>Yep, that IS what he said, despite his irrelevant off topic moaning
>>about footnotes and the like. He also claims to agree with the facts
>>in "Sutherland's article" - whatever that says!
>
>
> If that's the case,
> then it's definitely the fact that it was I who presented it he moans about.
> Isn't it?

Inger,

        No. My problem is not with the term paper, or with your
pointing us to it. My problem is with your puffing it up as
something it's not. You have done this before, and it is not
acceptable academic behavior. You, who tell us that the
important thing are the facts and arguments, not the authority
of the author, have gone to ludicrous lengths to try to make Mr.
Kim's term paper into a thing of authority:

        You pretend that the term paper is an abstract to a larger
article; but it is not. The entire paper is on his student web
site.

        You claimed that because it was on his university's server,
that meant that it was vetted by the university. It was not.

        You have stated that Kim's paper goes beyond Sutherland's
articles on the same subject. You haven't shown that to be
true, and there is almost no likelihood that Kim knows more
about those two small artifacts of impure copper than Sutherland.

        _That's_ what I object to. I'd ask you to try to get it right,
but you and Seppo seem to be on auto-pilot and the order of your
day is attacking me for something I didn't do.

        On another issue brought up in your conversation with Seppo here:

        Your little on-line conversation with Seppo is, I believe, a
very public example of the way you talk about people behind
their backs in email, and maybe in other ways.

        Someone you know, that I have had communications with, had an
entirely negative impression of me personally before he ever
read a full post of mine, or had called or emailed me about his
concerns. He had that impression because *YOU* lied about what
I'd written, and about me personally. When he actually read
what I actually wrote, he apologized to me because he had been
led astray *BY YOU*.

        You sometimes have interesting things to contribute. But your
continuing and apparently uncontrollable abuse of others, your
poor command of English, and your frequent incoherence make me
think that your overall contribution is negative, and decidedly so.

        Now run along, Inger. You'll undoubtedly have to quickly type
out an attack on me for expressing my opinion. But you only
interest me any more to the extent that you are able to muster
apposite, valid and fully-referenced information, or useful
critiques of things I care about.

        Oh, and of course I reserve the right to defend myself from
attacks. If I don't get into long pissing contests with you,
however, don't imagine that that means I don't care or that I'm
not willing to take appropriate action. It just means that I
won't rise to every bait you cast.

Tom McDonald

<snip>



Relevant Pages

  • Re: I just dont understand why...
    ... >> speculating about the lives of the people in the accident. ... There are no facts to support your statement. ...
    (rec.boats.paddle)
  • Re: Dan Christensens support of genocide, violations of human rights and abuses against people
    ... More Facts. ... whenever you post your lies about me I post the truth about you. ... violations of law, slander, ...), have shamed him in to changing it on ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
  • Re: I just dont understand why...
    ... get your facts straight - There is only one dead person! ... >> how to run their business. ... compromising situation as well, then we can learn that it is best to ...
    (rec.boats.paddle)
  • Re: I just dont understand why...
    ... There are no facts to support your statement. ... > facts, you can only project by speculation, which was what the ... > it would be my wife, or my wife would be very close at hand. ...
    (rec.boats.paddle)
  • Re: Ex-President for Sale
    ... I think that things like blogs will have a tremendous impact on history. ... They are a blog only in that facts may be immediately disseminated. ... such that the initial story makes the splash, not the correction. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)