Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (36286)	4/29/1999 10:31:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine: 1) I did NOT get involved in the debate about mummies. 2) I DID say I would be cautious about any allegations that the ONLY reason some theory has been rejected is the selfish vested interest and/or the intellectual cowardice of The Establishment. God knows that can happen, but the problem is that every charlatan in the world claims to be a persecuted genius. So I would ask that such allegations be proved with the same rigor as the theory in question is expected to be. 3) I was not giving a definition of "paradigm"; I was only restating the thought in a different way, in case I had not made myself clear. No need to be so touchy. Joan

To: Grainne who wrote (36286)	4/29/1999 11:40:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<afraid of jeopardizing their tenure>> <<cover story in Newsweek and a discussion between archaeologists in a Nova transcript>> Just a couple of academically-snobbish points --- anyone afraid of being sacked despite having tenure is at a third rate institution or worse. Newsweek and Novaare not referreed journals, so are not usually recognized as evidence. Finally, isn't "disingenuous" a little harsh? "Careless", maybe, "insufficiently scholarly" perhaps, but not disingenuous. Rock on!