Re: Query re: IE website

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...>
wrote:

>
> --- On Tue, 6/16/09, darkstar100@... <darkstar100@...> wrote:

> From: darkstar100@... <darkstar100@...>
> Subject: [tied] Re: Query re: IE website
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:12 PM
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen
> <elme@> wrote:
>
>> No, that is no trustworthy source of information. Symptomatically,
>> he writes, "[it] Took months to collect, and months to correct".
>> He certainly needs more months yet before his work is done.
>
>> Jens
>
>> --- In cybalist@... s.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Dear List,
>
>>> Does anybody know if this IE website is reliable?
>
>>> http://indo-european-migrations. scienceontheweb. net/index. html
>
>>> Who is "Darkstar" (the author of these webpages)?
>
>>> Thanks for a reply.
>
>>> Francesco
>
> How reliable are opinions of people who set themselves as judges to
> decide if something is reliable?When I see what professional
> linguists with professional formation who publish in professional
> journals under their own names have to say, I respect their
> opinions much more than someone completely unknown who uses a
> cartoonish-sounding name. I can't speak for the rest of the list,
> but as an academic, I respect hard-earned credientials.

Too make things clear from the start, I will explain that I don't
care who anybody is, or how much money he earns, or who's his
brother, or even what he published offline in some journal that is
out of immediate reach online (it's the Internet Age, wake up! What's
not at your fingertips, no longer exists in nature!). To me, you're
are just letters on the screen, and I can only judge you by what you
write or have to say here and now or at least somewhere online. I
will also test whether you understand basic logic and scientific
method (many people don't), and attempt to extract some psychology
info on you based on the way you write. For instance, if you get much
too critical, and never say anything good, I may draw the conclusion
that you're not a creative or maybe not even a smart person and that
you're only able to criticize other people's work without doing
anything of your own, therefore good critciism is supposed to include
a consideration of both strong and weak points of a statement or text
in question. You're also supposed to back up your statements with
arguments; free-floating "opinions" are good for the kitchen talk,
not a scientifically-oriented forum...

If you're not interested in trying to fit these criteria, there's probably no point to start.

[Reformatted slightly to remove excess blank lines. -BMS]