Posted: May 19, 2016 6:58 pm
ScholasticSpastic wrote:
This is what I said:The internet doesn't work that way. I suppose if you were to learn to make more facile use of it, you might know that. If information concerning ostracoderms has been removed from the web, including from academic websites, what would this tell us about how likely that information is to be consistent with a current understanding of ostracoderms? It seems to me that if academic websites stop making a claim, it has probably been shown to be incorrect. If so, that would demonstrate that it is you who is ignorant of the subject, if not the history of the subject, because rather than desiring to continue learning, like a scientist does, you have decided instead to rest upon your out-dated laurels.
I have no idea whether this is the case. It is your claim to support and I have thus not made the effort. Do your own fucking homework.
If the sense of the entire paragraph differs from the sense of the very tiny fragment you've picked out and responded to, that is called quote-mining. Along with refusing to support your claims, it is another tactic used by people who eschew rational discourse. It is also a violation of the FUA. I'm not reporting it because it's simple to just scroll upward and see what an asshat you've been by just responding to that little bit of what I had to say. You're only hurting yourself by behaving like an asshat, David.
This is all nonsense. Tbh, I don't know how you have the nerve to post such junk. The items were on the internet for years, but have obviously been dropped recently, no doubt because of doubts about their validity. Still, that wouldn't be anything new in evolutionary biology, which is, after all, one of the murkier areas of science.