JAM
Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (mitschlag @ Jan. 29 2008,07:10) | | Quote (JAM @ Jan. 28 2008,22:23) | Your reflexive mendacity is amazing. So, if Schindewolf's influence was confined entirely to his own university as you claim, you must have evidence that he:
1) Never reviewed any manuscripts from authors at other universities.
2) Never was asked for a tenure recommendation letter from tenure committees at any other universities.
3) Never wrote a letter of recommendation for a student or colleague to any university but his own.
Since all of those are negatives, you must have done an exhaustive search before (ethically) making such a grand claim.
Do you have any evidence that any of the above conditions existed, or were you simply talking out of your pompous hind end again? |
Not necessarily pompous. |
All the evidence points to it, though.
As Wes pointed out, Daniel is perfectly willing to denigrate the life's work of thousands of people, while rationalizing Schindewolf's misrepresentation of Darwin, only because Schindewolf's hypothesis appeals to his particularly offensive twisting of Christian theology.
| Quote | | Inexperienced and uninformed, more likely. |
Absolutely, but I've found that those two qualities tend to be highly associated with pomposity.
|
