assertions are not the same as
carefully supported arguments using
citations of the exact, detailed work
of other scientists. Other scientists
typically do not operate at the grand scheme level, but at the careful assembly of one more
piece at a time.
Those who operate at the grand scheme level
must still cite exact facts which have been
carefully assembled by their colleagues, peers...
folks who work in the field
So are you saying your work is based on
the exact work of other scientists?
When you make an assertion to overturn
conventional scientific consensus, do you cite the work of career scientists so that your fact base is secure...for it is only new interpretation you appear to offer...and so are
you relying on the findings of career scientists
as to the habits of geologic processes?

An honest, comprehensive reply from you will
almost certainly not be given.

• An honest comprehansive reply - emperor__alikar - May 9, 2002 - 01:16 UTC
  • Suggestion - stormcrow - May 9, 2002 - 01:32 UTC
    • True yet not. - emperor__alikar - May 9, 2002 - 02:55 UTC
  • If you won't be mad we don't take your word for it - quiet - May 9, 2002 - 02:37 UTC
    • okay - emperor__alikar - May 9, 2002 - 02:58 UTC