RE: Scholarly credibility

Gatherer, D. (
Tue, 05 Oct 1999 09:33:02 +0200

Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 09:33:02 +0200
From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <>
Subject: RE: Scholarly credibility
To: "''" <>

>As far as I'm concerned, and as far as anyone else is concerned, Paul has
>problems with scholarly credibility.

Really? Anyone who can give a cursory read of his references section can
start finding errors quite quickly. Start by looking for the book whose
title is mutated into inflated language.

I assume you refer to your own book? Well, I'm looking at the cover right
now, and its title is exactly as Paul quotes it.

If Marsden wants to improve his
scholarly reputation, then perhaps he could start by going to the library
and actually reading the titles of the works he cites directly and report
back the correct titles and other information. I am not going to do the
work for him: he should have already done it himself. Nor am I going to
assume that he has actually seen, let alone read, all the works he cites.

Now who's using foul language?

The misquotations and falsifications of my own work are a main subject of
my upcoming rebuttal.

Aaron, answer me one question. If Paul and I have misrepresented your work,
how come nobody (except you) has ever pointed this out to us?

This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)