Message 41

Up
Previous Next

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:44:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew Arensburger
To: Steve Rudd
Subject: Re: Andrew 

On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 Steve Rudd wrote:
> [Omitted at author's request]
> >On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 Steve Rudd wrote:
> > > [Omitted at author's request]
> >
> >         I'm all for this, though you may want to talk to Patton, to make
> >sure your web page and his lecture notes are in sync.
> 
> [Omitted at author's request]

	My understanding is that according to Patton, KNM-ER 1805 is a
Homo habilis. This may or may not be true; my point is, that's not what
Falk said.

> [Omitted at author's request]

	As I just said, Homo habilis is a subset of Homo. Homo habilis
_is_ a Homo, in the same way that any resident of New York is also a
resident of the United States.
	Falk was talking about whether KNM-ER 1805 is a Homo or an
Australopithecus (similar to talking about whether someone is an American
or a Canadian). The question of whether it is a Homo habilis or not
(similar to asking whether the person is a New Yorker or not) is a more
specific question, and one that Falk does not address.

> [Omitted at author's request]

	Hm? Contradiction between what and what?
	You seem to forget that my page is not about whether or not the
people that Patton quotes are right or not, but rather about Patton's
habitual pattern of selectively quoting people to distort their meaning.

-- 
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy		Center for Automation Research
arensb@cfar.umd.edu			University of Maryland
       Never do anything twice that you don't have to do at all.

Previous Next