Concerning Bakke

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> BAKKE

> If you are already familiar with them, how can you possibly not know

> what is considered to be a leading, peer-reviewed science magazine as

> opposed to the mass-market pap you referenced in the post which led to

> this discussion?

>

> TERRY

> Because I wanted to see what YOU, were going to recommend


BAKKE
That does not answer the question I asked.  The answer is not dependent
on what publications I would have recommended.


TERRY
Let's see what was the question again, "how could I not know what was
considered."  I DID KNOW what I considered a good science magazines and
Time and Newsweek were not on the list, but that does mean I want read
either one of them if one is laying around.




> BAKKE

> I can assure you that if you ever find anything in one of those journals

> that supports any of your arguments, I will keel over from shock.

>

> TERRY

> Good, I will remember that.


BAKKE
Perhaps now you will actually read them?

TERRY
I  do read them when I have a chance, thank you.


> TERRY

> Will you also keel over from shock, if I find

> something in weekly reader, since you recommended it too. *grin*


BAKKE
I mentioned it as a publication more in line with your demonstrated
level of scholarship and not as any recommended source of scientific
information.  BTW, it seems that I was rather prescient in my Weekly
Reader comment.  Read down a few paragraphs to see why (look for the
label ***PRESCIENCE ALERT***)!



> BAKKE

> Now that you know, does this mean that my arguments will carry any more

> weight as far as you are concerned?

>

> TERRY

> Why should your arguments carry any more or any less weight because you

> mention the name of some magazines you consider real scientific

magazines?

> I will have to wait until I hear your arguments to make that

> determination.


BAKKE
You have been hearing my arguments on many issues for some time now.
You also know the URL to my web site where a great deal of such things
are posted.  So, what are you waiting for?


TERRY
What am I waiting for, what do you mean "what am I waiting for".


> BAKKE

> And, now that you know, I'll bet that you'll still try to defend Time

> and Newsweek as being equally-reliable sources of cutting-edge science

> articles, right?

>

> TERRY

> Oh, boy!  Well, you will lose your bet, because Time and Newsweek are

news

> magazines and I told you I was reading it for the enjoyment of reading,

> there was nothing else laying around at the moment and I picked one up

and

> read some of it.  That does not mean I consider Time and Newsweek to be

> "reliable sources of cutting-edge science articles."


BAKKE
If you are now going to agree with me, does this mean we won't hear
further mention of these magazines in the same breath as real sources of
science information?


TERRY
When did I say I did not agree that Time and Newsweek were not science
magazines, my mentioning anything in either of these magazines would
depend on what I read.



> TERRY

> Here is a source I do enjoy reading, www.sciencedaily.com


BAKKE
***PRESCIENCE ALERT***
I almost hate to bring this up, but the creator of that site is also the
managing editor of a bi-weekly science newsletter for junior high school
students that is published by the Weekly Reader Corporation....


TERRY
I don't care  who or  what he is the creator of, I said I enjoy reading
the site and I will continue reading it, along with others too.  Do you
have a problem with my reading this site also, if so explain exactly what
it is and  why.

• Previous message: Concerning Bakke
• Next message: Objective morality
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]