<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="-1"><font face="Arial">Geoff,<br>
<br>
"Nonsense" </font></font><font size="-1"><font face="Arial">is judged
relative to one's own standards</font></font><font size="-1"><font
face="Arial">. I've commented on some of it on this list and in recent
publications. It's just that some nonsense is more glaring than others.
But in the end, it's bad science. Simply look at what is commonly
presented on Taxacom.<br>
<br>
Kirk <br>
</font></font>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
Curator of Polychaetes
Invertebrate Zoology Section
Research & Collections Branch
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
900 Exposition Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90007
Phone: 213-763-3233
FAX: 213-746-2999
e-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:kfitzhug@nhm.org">kfitzhug@nhm.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/staff.html">http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/staff.html</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/index.html">http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/index.html</a>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</pre>
<br>
<br>
Geoff Read wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:42151.202.36.29.1.1228942430.squirrel@my.actrix.co.nz"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Folks,
Interesting. There was almost no feedback on that posting. What looks like
an incomprehensible load of nonsense is published, and the reaction is -
zilch, blah, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Should we leave awful work uncommented upon? Just ignore it? I don't
think so. Should I be more kind and non-judgmental? Very likely, but it
is disappointing to see something like this slip through to muddy the
waters of the permanent record.
