The point of the article is that these are not things that are
necessarily disturbing to individuals, but the ones that have
disturbed the status quo in society's thinking.
Regards, Laurie.
On 22/05/2010, at 4:55 AM, Ray Kellman wrote:
Alan,
Thanks I enjoyed reading these and would have missed them if you
hadn't
posted this. But as one very familiar with the Smithsonian I would
remind
folks that The "Smithsonian is a magazine not a peer-reviewed
journal, Ms.
Helmuth is not a scientist but a columnist and the editorial board
has its
own political drum to beat which it does diligently. Nevertheless, a
fun
read
Ray Kellman
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Alan McBride
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 5:23 PM
To: John Leonard; Birding Aus
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] The Ten Most Disturbing Scientific
Discoveries
I'm sorry John, forgive me, I thought the title did that adequately?
Each individual on the list will have a different opinion of whether
they
are disturbing or not. I simply found it fascinating and thought
others
would too, the title of the article was by the author and not me.
I try and limit the length of my posts to avoid recipients having to
read
too much when the link target covers it (we've all got too much else
to read
each day). Can't see how any more of my comments on this one would
have
helped;-)
Best
Alan
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
