It is time to begin to proof read a bit more carefully.
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Possibly nature is out of date. Once again not my problem. Nature is a popular journal after all.
My statement was that General Interest Media/Journals do a lousy job when reporting on Science and
Technology. You seem to think that I'm picking on just the BBC and the UK press. I'm picking on
everyones press. You've so far done nothing except but call me names and shown no other evidence to the
contrary. In fact you've actually supported my contention. Having worked in Radio, and for couple of
different Newspapers in my life I have a very good idea of where how they get their storys. Bob W wrote:
Hi,
Sunday, November 21, 2004, 2:14:25 AM, Peter wrote:
I already pointed one out. It's not my job to critique their web site
and I really don't care. Just because the local UK papers get their S&T
news from the BBC doesn't validate the BBC it only makes them just as
out of date. There's a Latin name for that logical failing but since
I've forgotten more formal logic than I remember you'll have to take my
word for it, or look it up.
I'n beginning to wonder if you can read. I didn't say the UK papers get their stuff from the BBC, I said the BBC and the papers get it from press releases from journals such as 'Nature', which publish the original scientific papers. I also pointed to the source of this particular story which you claim is several years out of date. The source is the current edition of Nature (432, 345 - 352, 18 Nov 2004). Here is the abstract: http://tinyurl.com/5ou92.
If the hypothesis is not new, then it is Nature that is out of date, not the BBC or the UK press.
There's an Anglo-Saxon name for your logical fallacy.
Regards,
Bob
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
