Dana,
Thanks for the reply... and you are right... sometimes academics can appear to
be (unnecessarily) rude*. In most cases however, they are just getting to the
point swiftly. In academic circles during debates over differing hypotheses,
no one takes offense over curtness, especially when employed in "battle".
What is important is the truth seeking process, not who does it. Amateurs can
contribute, especially if they use the same process that the pros use and
subject themselves to the same rules and disciplines. (e.g. opinions without
"proofs" remain hypotheses not facts; primary sources trump secondary sources
every time; when your arguments are defeated, you admit it; etc. ).
best regards,
Joe
* I agree with you more than you know... after taking my degrees at the
university I started off the first 12 years of my working career as an
academic... ;-)
******************************************************
"Kyler, Dana" wrote:
> Joe
> I whole heartedly agree with this type of discussion etc. I dis-
> agreed with the way you said it. To often academia forgets though that the
> lay person can think as well as the next person but just doesn't have the
> education. To often the academic world looks down their noses at us who are
> not a member of the elite so to speak. This is the way in which I took what
> you wrote and this is what I was disagreeing with. You probably didn't mean
> it that way, but that is how I took it.
> I was not upset, just seeking clarification.
>
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html