I had not had the opportunity to read that section; however, I do see good
reasons not to allow "pop" versions of scientific papers--which often enjoy
a wider distribution than straight versions--to go unchallenged. I would
worry less about your incidental broadcast of erroneous ideas and focus on
refusing to allow egregious error to go unchallenged.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: The English Place-Name List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
John Freeman
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 6:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EPNL] DNA Shock Horror
Scat wrote:
">I believe that the late Professor Trask's condemnation was insufficiently
> strong;............
Well, Trask wrote in summary:
"This paper is a disaster. There is no reason for any linguist to pay any
attention to it. The procedure described is capricious, unprincipled,
arbitrary, *ad hoc* and subjective from beginning to end."
How much stronger would you like it? :-)
John Freeman
|