Petr Kuzmic wrote,
>Dominic-Luc Webb wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the responses, even the couple of
>> very rude and unprofessional ones I got from
>> poorly informed would-be scientists who spend
>> more time discrediting good scientists than
>> doing real science.
>>I haven't seen any unprofessional or rude responses here. Direct,
>maybe, but not rude. Perhaps you received some other responses, not
>posted to this forum, that weren't trying to be helpful.
>I was puzzled by this as well, as I haven't seen any rude responses either.
I think the explanation is that we are dealing with someone with a rather
personal definition of "rude", someone who thinks that it is rude to
suggest that general points that arise from a discussion on a news group
ought to be discussed on the news group, but that it is not rude to jump
into a discussion without checking what was said previously or reading the
FAQ.
Dominic-Luc Webb also wrote:
>Instead, some of you chose to slander
>very good biochemists, making this a poor excuse
>for a scientific exchange.
Not very specific, this. Can one slander people without naming them? Who do
you think he has in mind? If he is talking about great biochemists from the
past (Hans Krebs, say, though I don't remember if he said that
phosphofructokinase was rate-limiting) then I don't see why one cannot say
they were wrong on one or two points without any implication that they were
not great biochemists. If he's referring to present-day biochemists that he
thinks are being slandered he needs to say who he is talking about and give
some references. Who knows, maybe he has misread what he thinks they said.
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
athel at ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr
---
